Nadene Goldfoot
For a 63 year old Jewish USA mediator between the Palestinians and Israel, Martin Indyk shows me no understanding or empathy at all for Israel, even after living there in 1973 when he lived on a kibbutz and was there during the Yom Kippur War. He's an immigrant to the USA from London, England and had become the 2nd Jewish American ambassador to Israel. He had the perfect resume. Indyk has many titles; Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration is one. He was a framer of the US policy of dual containment involving Iran and Iraq, He's the author of "Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peacemaking Diplomacy in the Middle East" (a take off of of the America's Mark Twain's book, "The Innocents Abroad." He was a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies and taught Israeli politics and foreign policy. Then he also taught at the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and the Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He moved to Sydney, Australia and taught in the Department of Politics. The resume is long.
With all this successful background, he's become an American Democratic company man. An Israeli official felt he was now a hypocrite. That's because he used to be on the side of Israel's building program. Now he has verbally blamed Israel's "settlement activity" for the case of the failed peace talks. Thursday's speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy included his insistence that both sides were guilty of bad faith and not serious about peace. He gave a specific comment about Israel's fault but not about the Palestinians? Isn't that being little sir echo to Kerry's comments?
(Not serious about peace? Israel? Israel has given up much since 1948 in the name of peace. How many mortars, missile and rockets does Israel have to be hit with until outsiders understand that Israel is very serious about needing peace and this is what they got instead?) They've been asking for peace since 1948. Of course Israel wants peace, but is not about to put the whole state into jeopardy and lose it over a false peace. A peace accord with the PA can also mean a step closer again to the Gaza situation, too. The settlement activity he aimed at is the construction going on in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, the contentious pieces of land that Palestinians have wanted to create for their state of Palestine. If they were so Gung Ho about a having their state, how about signing a peace paper and getting on with it to end the construction? That activity is the carrot to put an end to 66 years of hemming and hawing and trying to stick it to the Jews.
Tell me, Mr Indyk, do you think that Israel is elated about handing over 23% of their tiny land they worked so hard to procure after losing 80% of it to Jordan after the League of Nations promised it for the Jewish National Homeland? 23% is what the Christian Palestinians now want for the state. Have you included Sabeel into your outline of Palestine? That's the Presbyterian-Christian Palestinian organization who want 23% of the land. This Palestine you are sticking up for, do you realize it is to be all Palestinian Arabs? No Jews at all? What is Israel going to be left with these days when anti-Semitism is running rampant and Jewish immigrants are still coming to live in Israel for reasons of wanting to stay alive after being threatened? Do you think anti-Semitism will suddenly stop once Palestine is created? Do you think there is really a comparison between waiting for 2,000 years for Israel to happen and just deciding on needing a state since 1967, a matter of 47 years? Israel never put refugees into camps. They put themselves there.
Of course the Palestinians are blaming Israel's non-stop building program for their reason of stopping the talks. They had already made the decision to join up with Hamas terrorists anyway, the other half who has connected with them recently in the past. Who thinks that they are dead set on creating a state in the first place? They don't want to start from scratch. They intend to take all of Israel, not just 23% of it. They took steps they said they wouldn't take, far more assertive and destructive than building a few apartment buildings such as their Hamas -Fatah reconciliation and then taking unilateral steps to apply to UN agencies for their state.
However, Israel has decided that a 2 state solution is the best plan, and have been trying for that for the past 66 years, only to see it fail. I don't know about Israel's Knesset, but I feel that the Palestinians don't really want their own state. They're reveling in the role they have taken, being the fighters against the unwelcome Jews who have returned to their land. Their goal is not a state of their own. If it was all that important, they would accept a deal and teach their children to behave towards Israel. They wouldn't create maps minus Israel but telling their people the land is all Palestine. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out, Mr. Indyk. This will never happen. Just look at the charter of Hamas, and realize they are hooked into Hamas.
I might add that Judea and Samaria were the original Judah, land that had broken off from Israel of ancient days and was the land that Jerusalem was the capital of in both Israel and Judah. Jewish settlement has taken place in the last century on the Western side of Palestine due to ships coming there from Europe, USA, etc. After the 1967 War, this land of Judea, Samaria once again came back to be under Israel. So did east Jerusalem, home of the Temple Mount, the Wall, and many other important Jewish areas that they were denied from when Jordan held the land after taking 80% of the promised by League of Nations decision to give the land to the Jews for the Jewish Homeland. How can Indyk be in denial of all these facts? He's been bought for the price of the title of Special Envoy for Israel-Palestinian Negotiations. He had to take a leave of absence from his position as Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC to do this. .
It was a senior Israeli official that has accused him of hypocrisy after these comments of his who told Reuters that Indyk knew that construction in these areas would continue during the discussions. Indyk blames Israel while not saying anything about his own responsibility for the impasse. It's felt that Indyk made no contribution to the discussions that made any progress.
Indyk just threw it back by saying that more building had a very damaging effect and that Israelis knew it had such an effect. He accused the government officials in charge of the building program of being adamantly opposed to negotiations even though they are part of a government committed to negotiations. He alluded to that fact that if negotiations do not come to a good climax, the result could be the end of Israel's future.
"There are not 2 truths here, only one: The Palestinians torpedoed the negotiations by choosing to reconcile with Hamas and take unilateral steps to apply to UN agencies," responded Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis of Likud. Akunis disagreed that construction over the 1949 Armistice lines destroyed chances for peace. "There were no "settlement" until 1967," he reminded everyone listening. "Why didn't the Palestinians extend a hand in peace before that?
Israel has been hard at trying to come to a peace accord since 1948 when they were a state, but were met with attacks instead. It's been 66 years of the same old thing. There's always something the Palestinian Arabs disagree about if they can't take all the land. Their desire for their own state had only come to a head after 1967 when the leaders of the nations that lost the war in attacking Israel were trying a new assault with a "Palestine" nation of these people sitting in refugee camps in their counties.
It's too bad that Martin is such a quick learner from John Kerry and seems to be his carbon copy. This must be the only accepted way the USA wants it. Orders come from Obama, of course, on how to deal with Israel.
Martin was born and raised in London, England. He graduated in 1977. He then emigrated to the USA and has 2 children, Sarah and Jacob. He's a former professor and taught Israeli politics and foreign policy. He sounds like the perfect person for the job. He started out to be very pro-Israel in his work, only to be criticized for it. Several years ago he was one who supported settlement building, and so the Palestinians wouldn't work with him. Is this it? In order to keep his job he has thrown out his ethics? The truth?
This isn't an American basketball game. You can't back the Portland Trailblazers in one season and then decide to back San Antonio's Spurs the next season because they bought you out. A man sticks to his truth and doesn't settle for lies. By being wishy-washy, the Palestinians will always feel that they can spin any story that suits their political agenda and pull the wool over the West's eyes. You can't be their friend. You've got to lead them into logic and the hard cold facts.
Rockets, missiles, and mortars have been aimed into Israel for over 14 years now from Gaza's terrorists, Hamas and their friends. Yet the Palestinians are not showing that they are willing to sit down and make amends or peace. If anything, Israel knows the timing is horrid. Just turn on the TV and listen to a Palestinian children's program to see how they are brainwashing their children into hating Jews and Israelis. Certain steps have to be taken first to show themselves that they are ready to run a peaceful state, or does the UN and USA just want to create a more vibrant enemy closer now to Israel who has full state rights and will get themselves supplied with an army to use against Israel? Is that it? Are arms dealers chomping at the bit to sell arms legally to Palestine?
Martin, you of all people should understand what pressures Israel is under and what the stakes are. They can't be solved by giving into the Palestinian's off the wall demands, or Obama's, either. You let Israel down.
Resource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Indyk
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/how-fair-is-martin-indyk-who-says-he-was-motivated-by-my-connection-to-israel.html
For a 63 year old Jewish USA mediator between the Palestinians and Israel, Martin Indyk shows me no understanding or empathy at all for Israel, even after living there in 1973 when he lived on a kibbutz and was there during the Yom Kippur War. He's an immigrant to the USA from London, England and had become the 2nd Jewish American ambassador to Israel. He had the perfect resume. Indyk has many titles; Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs during the Clinton Administration is one. He was a framer of the US policy of dual containment involving Iran and Iraq, He's the author of "Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peacemaking Diplomacy in the Middle East" (a take off of of the America's Mark Twain's book, "The Innocents Abroad." He was a professor at the School of Advanced International Studies and taught Israeli politics and foreign policy. Then he also taught at the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and the Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University. He moved to Sydney, Australia and taught in the Department of Politics. The resume is long.
With all this successful background, he's become an American Democratic company man. An Israeli official felt he was now a hypocrite. That's because he used to be on the side of Israel's building program. Now he has verbally blamed Israel's "settlement activity" for the case of the failed peace talks. Thursday's speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy included his insistence that both sides were guilty of bad faith and not serious about peace. He gave a specific comment about Israel's fault but not about the Palestinians? Isn't that being little sir echo to Kerry's comments?
(Not serious about peace? Israel? Israel has given up much since 1948 in the name of peace. How many mortars, missile and rockets does Israel have to be hit with until outsiders understand that Israel is very serious about needing peace and this is what they got instead?) They've been asking for peace since 1948. Of course Israel wants peace, but is not about to put the whole state into jeopardy and lose it over a false peace. A peace accord with the PA can also mean a step closer again to the Gaza situation, too. The settlement activity he aimed at is the construction going on in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, the contentious pieces of land that Palestinians have wanted to create for their state of Palestine. If they were so Gung Ho about a having their state, how about signing a peace paper and getting on with it to end the construction? That activity is the carrot to put an end to 66 years of hemming and hawing and trying to stick it to the Jews.
Tell me, Mr Indyk, do you think that Israel is elated about handing over 23% of their tiny land they worked so hard to procure after losing 80% of it to Jordan after the League of Nations promised it for the Jewish National Homeland? 23% is what the Christian Palestinians now want for the state. Have you included Sabeel into your outline of Palestine? That's the Presbyterian-Christian Palestinian organization who want 23% of the land. This Palestine you are sticking up for, do you realize it is to be all Palestinian Arabs? No Jews at all? What is Israel going to be left with these days when anti-Semitism is running rampant and Jewish immigrants are still coming to live in Israel for reasons of wanting to stay alive after being threatened? Do you think anti-Semitism will suddenly stop once Palestine is created? Do you think there is really a comparison between waiting for 2,000 years for Israel to happen and just deciding on needing a state since 1967, a matter of 47 years? Israel never put refugees into camps. They put themselves there.
Of course the Palestinians are blaming Israel's non-stop building program for their reason of stopping the talks. They had already made the decision to join up with Hamas terrorists anyway, the other half who has connected with them recently in the past. Who thinks that they are dead set on creating a state in the first place? They don't want to start from scratch. They intend to take all of Israel, not just 23% of it. They took steps they said they wouldn't take, far more assertive and destructive than building a few apartment buildings such as their Hamas -Fatah reconciliation and then taking unilateral steps to apply to UN agencies for their state.
However, Israel has decided that a 2 state solution is the best plan, and have been trying for that for the past 66 years, only to see it fail. I don't know about Israel's Knesset, but I feel that the Palestinians don't really want their own state. They're reveling in the role they have taken, being the fighters against the unwelcome Jews who have returned to their land. Their goal is not a state of their own. If it was all that important, they would accept a deal and teach their children to behave towards Israel. They wouldn't create maps minus Israel but telling their people the land is all Palestine. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out, Mr. Indyk. This will never happen. Just look at the charter of Hamas, and realize they are hooked into Hamas.
I might add that Judea and Samaria were the original Judah, land that had broken off from Israel of ancient days and was the land that Jerusalem was the capital of in both Israel and Judah. Jewish settlement has taken place in the last century on the Western side of Palestine due to ships coming there from Europe, USA, etc. After the 1967 War, this land of Judea, Samaria once again came back to be under Israel. So did east Jerusalem, home of the Temple Mount, the Wall, and many other important Jewish areas that they were denied from when Jordan held the land after taking 80% of the promised by League of Nations decision to give the land to the Jews for the Jewish Homeland. How can Indyk be in denial of all these facts? He's been bought for the price of the title of Special Envoy for Israel-Palestinian Negotiations. He had to take a leave of absence from his position as Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC to do this. .
It was a senior Israeli official that has accused him of hypocrisy after these comments of his who told Reuters that Indyk knew that construction in these areas would continue during the discussions. Indyk blames Israel while not saying anything about his own responsibility for the impasse. It's felt that Indyk made no contribution to the discussions that made any progress.
Indyk just threw it back by saying that more building had a very damaging effect and that Israelis knew it had such an effect. He accused the government officials in charge of the building program of being adamantly opposed to negotiations even though they are part of a government committed to negotiations. He alluded to that fact that if negotiations do not come to a good climax, the result could be the end of Israel's future.
"There are not 2 truths here, only one: The Palestinians torpedoed the negotiations by choosing to reconcile with Hamas and take unilateral steps to apply to UN agencies," responded Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis of Likud. Akunis disagreed that construction over the 1949 Armistice lines destroyed chances for peace. "There were no "settlement" until 1967," he reminded everyone listening. "Why didn't the Palestinians extend a hand in peace before that?
Israel has been hard at trying to come to a peace accord since 1948 when they were a state, but were met with attacks instead. It's been 66 years of the same old thing. There's always something the Palestinian Arabs disagree about if they can't take all the land. Their desire for their own state had only come to a head after 1967 when the leaders of the nations that lost the war in attacking Israel were trying a new assault with a "Palestine" nation of these people sitting in refugee camps in their counties.
It's too bad that Martin is such a quick learner from John Kerry and seems to be his carbon copy. This must be the only accepted way the USA wants it. Orders come from Obama, of course, on how to deal with Israel.
Martin was born and raised in London, England. He graduated in 1977. He then emigrated to the USA and has 2 children, Sarah and Jacob. He's a former professor and taught Israeli politics and foreign policy. He sounds like the perfect person for the job. He started out to be very pro-Israel in his work, only to be criticized for it. Several years ago he was one who supported settlement building, and so the Palestinians wouldn't work with him. Is this it? In order to keep his job he has thrown out his ethics? The truth?
This isn't an American basketball game. You can't back the Portland Trailblazers in one season and then decide to back San Antonio's Spurs the next season because they bought you out. A man sticks to his truth and doesn't settle for lies. By being wishy-washy, the Palestinians will always feel that they can spin any story that suits their political agenda and pull the wool over the West's eyes. You can't be their friend. You've got to lead them into logic and the hard cold facts.
Rockets, missiles, and mortars have been aimed into Israel for over 14 years now from Gaza's terrorists, Hamas and their friends. Yet the Palestinians are not showing that they are willing to sit down and make amends or peace. If anything, Israel knows the timing is horrid. Just turn on the TV and listen to a Palestinian children's program to see how they are brainwashing their children into hating Jews and Israelis. Certain steps have to be taken first to show themselves that they are ready to run a peaceful state, or does the UN and USA just want to create a more vibrant enemy closer now to Israel who has full state rights and will get themselves supplied with an army to use against Israel? Is that it? Are arms dealers chomping at the bit to sell arms legally to Palestine?
Martin, you of all people should understand what pressures Israel is under and what the stakes are. They can't be solved by giving into the Palestinian's off the wall demands, or Obama's, either. You let Israel down.
Resource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Indyk
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/how-fair-is-martin-indyk-who-says-he-was-motivated-by-my-connection-to-israel.html
No comments:
Post a Comment