Archive for State Department

Department of Clarification

“Let me be clear,” as Obama likes to say:

The United States is not considering sanctions against Israel in response to its construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki clarified on Monday.

“I can set the record straight and be clear that reports that we might be contemplating sanctions against Israel are completely unfounded and without merit,” She told reporters, according to The Blaze.

Psaki was asked if perhaps the Obama administration had been considering sanctions against Israel and now is not, adding she thinks her statement “has been consistently true” over time.

However, she indicated that the government may in fact have been mulling sanctions against Israel at some point. For example, she was asked explicitly if sanctions were ever under consideration, and refused to say more, “I just am not going to have any more for you on it.”

Moments later, she said sanctions against Israel are nothing something that will be “moving forward,” a possible indication that the option did exist. She then quickly corrected herself to say they were never being contemplated.

“We put sanctions in place around the world for a variety of reasons,” she said. “This isn’t a situation where obviously moving forward with that, or were contemplating that, as my comments made clear.”

They did? I mean, they did!

Late last week, dozens of Republicans demanded that President Barack Obama answer clearly whether he is considering sanctions against Israel, a move that the GOP would have hotly opposed.

The letter, published Friday, further warned that “Israel is one of our strongest allies, and the mere notion that the Administration would unilaterally impose sanctions against Israel is not only unwise, but is extremely worrisome. Such reports send a clear message to our friends and enemies alike that such alliances with the United States government can no longer be unquestionably trusted.”

If you have to ask, don’t you already have your answer?

Comments (1)

How You Going to Keep Them Down in the Ghetto After They’ve Seen Jerusalem?

Concerned…“deeply concerned”…

Where have I heard those words before?

US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the move in the Ramot neighborhood would further hinder efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a two-state solution, Reuters reported.

“We are deeply concerned by this decision particularly given the tense situation in Jerusalem,” Psaki said during her daily press briefing. “Most importantly they are contrary to Israel’s own stated goal of achieving a two-state solution because they make it more difficult to do that.”

Funny. The world just celebrated the silver anniversary of the unification of another capital city. But not this one. Can’t imagine why.

Anyway, I now remember where I heard “concerned” before:

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on Tuesday issued a noncommittal response to two deadly attacks in Israel Monday, voicing “concern” about escalating violence and urging progress toward a “two-state solution.”

“We need a Palestinian state living in peace and security next to the Israeli state,” said Europe’s top diplomat in Berlin, after recently visiting Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

“And I am particularly sad and worried about the escalation of violence that we are witnessing these hours,” she told reporters, flanked by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, apparently referring to deadly stabbing attacks in Tel Aviv and Gush Etzion.

That was some EU dingbat, but what’s the difference? What Israel could use, “particularly given the tense situation in Jerusalem”, is a whole lot less of the West’s concern, sorrow, or worry. Let them bury their dead and build their houses in peace. If peace is what you truly seek, that is.

Comments (1)

Jen Psycho

Jen Psaki will never go lower than when she began:

But give her credit for trying:

MATT LEE, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Yesterday, the ICC made its decision that there was no case to prosecute for war crimes in Gaza. But also yesterday – and you spoke about that very briefly here. But also yesterday, General Dempsey, who is no slouch when it comes to military things, told an audience in New York that the Israelis went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage during the Gaza war.

And I’m puzzled, because I thought it was the position of the Administration – or maybe it was just the position of the State Department and the White House – that Israel was not doing enough to live up to its – what you called its own high standards. Back on August 3rd, there was the statement you put out after the UNRWA school incident, saying that the U.S. “is appalled by today’s disgraceful shelling.” And that was some pretty fierce criticism.

How do you reconcile these two apparent divergent points of view? When this statement came out, the United States was appalled? Did that just mean the State Department was appalled?

Allow, me, BTL—aka Thirstradamus—to take a bow. We called this yesterday. Over our morning coffee:

Dempsey said the Pentagon three months ago sent a “lessons-learned team” of senior officers and non-commissioned officers to work with the IDF to see what could be learned from the Gaza operation, “to include the measures they took to prevent civilian casualties and what they did with tunneling.”

The general said civilian casualties during the conflict were “tragic, but I think the IDF did what they could” to avoid them.

“The IDF is not interested in creating civilian casualties. They’re interested in stopping the shooting of rockets and missiles out of the Gaza Strip and into Israel,” Dempsey stressed.

Boy, another member of the Obama regime going off the reservation. Wait’ll Barack and John Kerry hear about this! Obama will know whose ass to kick.

Not only did the general praise Israel, he sent a team to learn how they did it!

Ms. Psaki, your response?

JEN PSAKI, STATE DEPARTMENT: No, that is the position of the Administration; it remains the position of the Administration. As we made clear throughout the summer’s conflict, we supported Israel’s right to self-defense and strongly condemned Hamas’s rocket attacks that deliberately targeted civilians, and the use of tunnels, of course, of attacks into Israel. However, we also expressed deep concern and heartbreak for the civilian death toll in Gaza and made clear, as you noted in the statement you pointed to, that we believed that Israel could have done more to prevent civilian casualties, and it was important that they held their selves to a high standard. So that remains our view and position about this summer’s events.

LEE: Okay. But I’m still confused as to how you can reconcile the fact that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – who knows a bit about how military operations work, I would venture to guess; I don’t know him, but I assume that he wouldn’t be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff if he was – if he didn’t —

MS. PSAKI: Correct.

LEE: — says that the Israelis essentially did the best that they could and lived up to – by extension lived up to their high standards by taking – by going to, quote, “extraordinary lengths” to limit the collateral damage.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would point you to the chairman’s team for his – more specifics on his comments. But it remains the broad view of the entire Administration that they could have done more and they should have taken more – all feasible precautions to prevent civilian casualties.

I almost think she couldn’t be this dumb, that someone is holding a metaphoric gun to her head, making her say these imbecilic things.

And then I look at that absurd selfie again. The administration’s position is that Israel did everything it could to prevent civilian casualties, yet is could have done more (while Hamass wanted as many as it could get, both Arab and Israeli). Yep, that twit could utter that nonsense on her own, without any coercion.

And, given her “high standard”, she could utter more.

Comments (1)

Hating on the Hebrew PM

If you want a closer look inside the toxic relationship between Obama and Netanyahu than that provided by Jeffrey Goldberg, you’ll need a colonoscope.

Either way, it’s FOS:

The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit.”

A great word, one I use whenever I can, but not enlightening here. To my understanding (and Urban Dictionary’s), it has two distinct meanings: nonsense, but nonsense more trivial than its bovine cousin; and just plain chicken, as in cowardly.

The Obamagruppenfuhrers mean both:

The relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the putatively “unbreakable” bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the worst it’s ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program.

Netanyahu has told several people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the American people should an Iran nuclear deal be reached. For their part, Obama administration officials express, in the words of one official, a “red-hot anger” at Netanyahu for pursuing settlement policies on the West Bank, and building policies in Jerusalem, that they believe have fatally undermined Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace process.

Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.” (These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a running list.) But I had not previously heard Netanyahu described as a “chickenshit.”

“The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,” the official said, expanding the definition of what a chickenshit Israeli prime minister looks like. “The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”

Okay, they’ve made their case; now I’ll make mine.

Sharon would have regretted giving Gaza to Hamass terrorists if he had not had an all-but-fatal stroke shortly after he did so. He certainly would not have allowed their massive militarization to take place unchecked, leading to two wars with Hamass, and their countless rockets and missiles, in less than a decade. His fellow hawk, Yitzak Rabin, would also likely have considered his Oslo accords an abject failure. Begin had Sadat, an Egyptian president, not a Palestinian terrorist. And Sadat got a hell of a deal from Begin, one no other Israeli PM could ever hope to match: Sinai (all 23,500 square miles). Just for promising not to launch another war he would certainly lose (again).

Oh yes, and two of these four characters, Sadat and Rabin, were assassinated for their efforts. Try to keep your wishful thinking out of it, Barack.

I am a serial admirer of Prime Minister Netanyahu—I would swap our nations’ leaders faster than you could say “hand me a five iron”. But I am also open about his faults. Most of those have to do with asking how high when Obama says jump.

Which the Obamagruppenfuhrers acknowledge even as they poke needles into his effigy:

I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

So, when he doesn’t do what you want, he’s a chicken[bleep]; and when he does do what you want (as above), he’s also a chicken[bleep].

Doesn’t that qualify as unadulterated bull[bleep]? It has to.

But then, this is their point of view, not mine. Certainly not Netanyahu’s.

Theirs and the author’s:

It is the Netanyahu government that appears to be disconnected from reality. Jerusalem is on the verge of exploding into a third Palestinian uprising. It is true that Jews have a moral right to live anywhere they want in Jerusalem, their holiest city. It is also true that a mature government understands that not all rights have to be exercised simultaneously.

Kind of Goldberg, presumably Jewish, to grant Jews the liberty to live (or not) in Jerusalem. Thousands of years late, but better late than never.

There’s so much more I could say, but the point is clear. This means war.

Comments

Jews Out of Jerusalem—American Foreign Policy

I’m no ingenue, but I can barely believe the words I’m reading:

The United States Monday blasted Israel for pledging to build 1,000 more Jewish homes in Jerusalem, saying any such move would be “incompatible” with peace efforts, according to AFP.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Washington was “deeply concerned” by the reports and American embassy officials were having high-level talks with Israeli leaders to seek more information.

“We continue to make our position absolutely clear that we view settlement activity as illegitimate and unequivocally oppose unilateral steps that prejudge the future of Jerusalem,” Psaki told reporters.

“Israel’s leaders have said they would support a pathway to a two-state solution, but moving forward with this type of action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace,” she added.

Jews living in Jerusalem: “incompatible with the pursuit of peace”. If that’s how you define peace, you can shove it up your “illegitimate and unequivocal” ass.

Imagine this administration condemning black families buying buildings in white neighborhoods and moving in. Imagine them saying this sort of thing after the black families were threatened with violence and then met it face to face. Imagine them saying it after two Jewish people (or black in this scenario, one a baby) were murdered by a Hamass operative (white supremacist) who ran them over with his car.

Yet they don’t hesitate saying it about Jews.

Speaking of Israeli apartheid:

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was denied meetings with top American officials during his visit to the United States this week, The Associated Press (AP) reported on Friday, citing officials in Washington.

While Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon did see Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, the officials said the White House and State Department rejected Israeli proposals for meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, national security adviser Susan Rice and Secretary of State John Kerry.

The officials also revealed that the Obama administration had sought to stop Ya’alon from seeing Power, but the objections were made too late to cancel the meeting.

I don’t dispute a single thing Ya’alon said—indeed, I’d go further—but you can’t expect them to be happy you said it. No one, not least me, said pettiness and thin-skin were not an integral part of politics.

Comments

Is This Still Smart Power?

It’s no surprise that that most self-celebrating of social media, Twitter, is this regime’s go-to method of foreign policy.

There was Michelle:

Then Jen Psaki:

Of course, Barack’s selfie:

With such a record of success, it’s no wonder they brought the hashtag to bear in the war on terror:

The State Department social media initiative designed to engage with ISIS terrorists and jihadist sympathizers is “embarrassing,” “ineffective” and “distressing,” the head of a prominent intelligence group wrote Tuesday in a scathing editorial.

The “Think Again Turn Away” campaign and Twitter account, launched by the State Department in December, in part, to dissuade on-the-fence jihadists from joining the fight against the West is actually serving to embolden and legitimize the social media presence of bloodthirsty terrorists already on the ground, Rita Katz, the director of the SITE Intelligence Group, wrote in a Time magazine article published online Tuesday.

The State Department’s “English-language outreach program is not only ineffective, but also provides jihadists with a stage to voice their arguments,” Katz claimed, calling the initiative’s Twitter account a “gaffe machine that “walks dangerous ethical lines.”

“Thirteen years into the war on terror, it is distressing to see certain ways the U.S. government is combating domestic radicalization by groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State,” Katz wrote. The account regularly (engages) in petty disputes with fighters and supporters of groups like IS (also known as ISIS), Al Qaeda and Al Shabaab, and (argues) over who has killed more people while exchanging sarcastic quips.”

“In order to counter a problem, one must first study it before adopting a solution. Had the people behind Think Again Turn Away understood jihadists’ mindsets and reasons for their behavior, they would have known that their project of counter messaging would not only be a waste of taxpayer money, but ultimately be counterproductive,” she wrote. “I would much rather see the State Department’s online ventures involved in projects that explain the great things American policies have achieved — not arguing with jihadi fighters on who killed more innocent Muslims.”

I don’t think they’re getting any smarter:

The U.S. State Department ratcheted up the online propaganda war on Wednesday, tweeting a photo composite showing four dead ISIS jihadis who it suggested were killed in overnight airstrikes in Syria.

The ‘Think Again Turn Away’ program’s Twitter account blasted out the image to nearly 8,000 followers. The initiative’s goal is to dissuade would-be jihadis, including so-called ‘foreign fighters,’ from joining up with ISIS.

One ISIS-linked Twitter account with nearly 10,000 followers claimed Tuesday night that the ‘first victims of air strikes by US on Syria’ were ‘children and women.’

Another tweeted news stories from dubious sources claiming French fighter jets mistakenly bombed Kurdish allies, killing 75 fighters in a friendly-fire cockup.

Separately, a weeks-long Twitter campaign centered around the hashtag #AMessageFromISIStoUS spread a series of chest-puffing boasts, including direct threats against the U.S. homeland.

We rightly condemn ISIS for broadcasting their executions of innocents hostages. But posting pictures of dead terrorists? In a Twitter account? By our government? Not only is it juvenile, it’s unseemly. Kill ‘em, kill ‘em all. Just don’t act like them.

Comments

A Woman Scorned

CBS benched Sharyl Attkisson until she ultimately resigned.

Bad move, CBS:

Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review

Sharyl Attkisson

As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

New Benghazi allegation puts spotlight on Hillary Clinton confidants, alleged after-hours document review.

According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story.

Maxwell says the weekend document session was held in the basement of the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters in a room underneath the “jogger’s entrance.” He describes it as a large space, outfitted with computers and big screen monitors, intended for emergency planning, and with small offices on the periphery.

When he arrived, Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisers.

“I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’”

Maxwell, 58, strongly supported President Barack Obama and personally contributed to his presidential campaign. But post-Benghazi, he has soured on both Obama and Clinton, saying he had nothing to do with security and was sacrificed as a scapegoat while higher-up officials directly responsible escaped discipline.

Maxwell spent a year on paid administrative leave with no official charge ever levied against him. Ultimately, the State Department cleared Maxwell of wrongdoing and reinstated him. He retired a short time later, in November 2013.

Several weeks after he was placed on leave with no formal accusations, Maxwell made an appointment to address his status with a State Department ombudsman.

“She told me, ‘You are taking this all too personally, Raymond. It is not about you,’ ” Maxwell recalls.

“I told her that ‘My name is on TV and I’m on administrative leave, it seems like it’s about me.’ Then she said, ‘You’re not harmed, you’re still getting paid. Don’t watch TV. Take your wife on a cruise. It’s not about you; it’s about Hillary and 2016.’ ”

How does this make you feel, Madame Secretary?

Don’t take it too hard. As the lady said, “it’s not about you”:

Attkisson said that the White House is misleading the public about the ongoing releases of information that they’ve offered regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2012 on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

She stated that one of the goals of the committee will be to investigate President Obama’s movement that night and how he reacted to the attack.

“I do think that they will reach out at some point, not in the beginning, to the White House and probably to President Obama directly, in some form, to get a timeline and an accounting of what he did that night, which has remained, mysteriously, and I think, unacceptably private when he’s the Commander-in-Chief acting on our behalf at a time when Americans are under attack on foreign soil.”

Ultimately, Attikisson confessed she has little hope that this committee will change the public narrative on what happened that night.

Allow me to elucidate, Sharyl. Obama was prepping for a fundraiser in Las Vegas the next day. Check his schedule; it’s public record.

Comments (1)

With Two Political Prisoners You Get Egg Roll

It’s not often I praise the Obama administration, much less its State Department.

It won’t become a habit, trust me:

The street holding the Chinese embassy in Washington DC could be renamed after a noted Chinese dissident.

An amendment attached to a state department budget bill would make the embassy’s address 1 Liu Xiaobo Plaza.

Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, is serving an 11-year sentence for subversion in China.

The Chinese foreign ministry has called the proposed change of address – which now requires Congress approval – “nothing more than a sheer farce”.

“Some people from the United States have used so-called human rights and the Liu Xiaobo case to engage in this meaningless sensationalism,” spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters.

Choke on it, China.

Comments

Our Friends, the Russians

Okay, so maybe Hillary’s embarrassing Reset Button gag went over like a lead balloon:

Nothing cements relations like mutual derision:

Russia is somewhat obsessed with Jen Psaki.

The State Department spokeswoman has turned into Russia’s boogeyman (boogey-woman?) and favorite punching bag as relations with the United States have deteriorated over the crisis in Ukraine.

She is demonized on television. Her gaffes are celebrated widely as internet memes on Russian social media. A popular radio morning show even mocked her in a song set to a popular children’s tune.

“There is nobody more competent than Psaki, nobody more pretty, or smarter,” sang the chorus, sarcastically. The song accused her of peddling “nonsense” to journalists and urged her to “keep it up, we want to laugh more.”

In April, Psaki was taunted by Russian media for using the hashtags #RussiaIsolated and #UnitedforUkraine on Twitter, including sending a photo of herself holding a #UnitedforUkraine sign with a thumbs up. (The Obama administration’s social media campaign on Ukraine, led by Psaki, was ridiculed by some at home as well, including the New York Post and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.)

ABC News calls this an “obsession”. But can you blame Russia? Psaki is pure comedy gold.

Yup:

Not just hashtags; sometimes there are bracelets:

Untitled

And perhaps the pansiest response of all:

Untitled

Those aren’t pansies? Sorry.

Anyway, if the French can love us for Jerry Lewis, why can’t Russia love us for Jen Psaki? She’s funnier.

Comments

Look Who’s Talking

Why doesn’t Israel try our way of handling kidnappings? Release more terrorists!

Whatever you do, Israel, show restraint:

The United States on Wednesday called on both Israel and the Palestinian Arabs to “show restraint” as Israel tightened their grip on Hamas hunting for three kidnapped teenagers, AFP reports.

“We recognize this is an incredibly sensitive and difficult circumstance on the ground, and we feel all sides should exercise restraint,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters.

And we all know how Jen Psaki responds to international war crimes:

“Hamas terrorists carried out Thursday’s kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers. We know that for a fact,” said Netanyahu in an official statement. “These teenagers were kidnapped and the kidnapping was carried out by Hamas members. Hamas denials do not change this fact.”

Psaki confirmed Wednesday that Frenkel is also a US citizen and said US officials had been in touch with his family.

“We urge both sides to exercise restraint and avoid the types of steps that could destabilize the situation,” she warned.

The US has been notably quiet about the kidnappings, drawing intense criticism from both Israelis and American Jewry over what many see as a blasé attitude toward the situation.

Hamass kidnapped Gilad Shalit and held him for more than five years, only to release him in exchange for over a thousand Arab prisoners. Is that what our valiant State Department suggests? Release another 3,000 criminals and terrorists as the boys rot away the remaining of their teen years in Hamass dungeons?

Israel knows any chance of retrieving the boys must be seized as soon as possible, when the intelligence is fresh and before the boys can be moved. F*ck restraint. Grab ‘em by the balls and twist until their eyes bug out of their heads.

PS: I don’t want to be too hard on Ms. Psaki, but I have yet to hear one sensible word come out of her head. What a clod.

Comments (1)

Boko and Mindy

Our intrepid diplomats have a cunning plan to bringbackourgirls.

Sit-coms:

The State Department is financing a new 24-hour satellite television channel in the turbulent northern region of Nigeria that American officials say is crucial to countering the extremism of radical groups such as Boko Haram. The move signals a ramping up of American counterinsurgency efforts to directly challenge the terrorist group, which abducted nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls in April.

State Department officials acknowledged that setting up an American-supported channel could prove challenging in a region where massacres, bombings and shootings by Boko Haram are common, and where the American government and Western educational programs are far from popular. The group has been known to attack media organizations in Nigeria.

The goal of the channel is to provide original content, including comedies and children’s programs that will be created, developed and produced by Nigerians. State Department officials said they hoped to provide an alternative to the violent propaganda and recruitment efforts of Boko Haram.

Suggested program titles: The Big Game Theory; Seinveldt; Allah in the Family, 276 Broken Girls.

Hey, it could work. Nothing changes minds and mores like mass media, right?

Many foreign policy experts, while applauding State Department programs to counter the efforts of Boko Haram and other extremist groups, said the new satellite project faced several challenges in a region with low levels of infrastructure, public services, literacy and security.

Access to electricity is limited in many rural areas of northern Nigeria, and few people own televisions. While some people might be able to view the programs on cellphones, a U.S.A.I.D. official recently told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Boko Haram has been targeting cellphone towers to reduce access to communication services in the region.

If Western education is sinful to Boko Haram, I doubt episodes of Hanna Savanna are going to appeal to the devout and pious Muslims among them. But other than “infrastructure, public services, literacy and security”, plus “massacres, bombings and shootings”, this thing has a chance.

They couldn’t protect Christopher Stevens, but they think they can produce a TV show. I’d say that’s Obama’s foreign policy in a nutshell.

Comments

Being John Kerry

Not exactly a headline designed to pack ‘em in, but give me a chance.

Ynet has an “exclusive” interview with an American intimately involved in the failed negotiations between Israel and the Arab occupiers of Judea and Samaria.

You’ll never guess whom Kerry and his people blame for the collapse:

From the US perspective, the issue of the settlements was largely to blame.

You’ll have to read a lot further down to find any other explanation. Over and over, Netanyahu and the Israelis are described as inflexible, insulting, disinterested—“we were doing this for you”, the official laments.

Even Arab failures are blamed on Israel:

Abbas refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

“We couldn’t understand why it bothered him so much. For us, the Americans, the Jewish identity of Israel is obvious. We wanted to believe that for the Palestinians this was a tactical move – they wanted to get something (in return) and that’s why they were saying ‘no.’

“The more Israel hardened its demands, the more the Palestinian refusal deepened. Israel made this into a huge deal – a position that wouldn’t change under any circumstances. The Palestinians came to the conclusion that Israel was pulling a nasty trick on them. They suspected there was an effort to get from them approval of the Zionist narrative.”

But there was one Israeli they did like:

“Tzipi Livni was a heroine. She fought with all of her might to promote the agreement.

We noted the other day Caroline Glick’s assertion that Livni serves as an American mole in the Israeli government. No wonder we want to give her a medal (while Jonathan Pollard rots in prison).

Subsequent events—Fatah making nice with Hamass, Kerry’s “Apartheid” comments—have bolstered any Israeli skepticism. Kerry may have been insulted by accusations that he was hot in pursuit of a Nobel Prize, but let’s just say he wouldn’t have turned one down had it been offered.

And now the threats of reprisal:

“As of now, nothing is stopping the Palestinians from turning to the international community. The Palestinians are tired of the status quo. They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.

“The boycott and the Palestinian application to international organizations are medium-range problems. America will help, but there’s no guarantee its support will be enough.

“Your extreme right wing is very happy with the collapse of the peace talks. They won’t accept any gesture, or any positive comment from the other side.”

Sigh. No doubt this anonymous American knows whereof he speaks. His account certainly fits the pattern of the Obama regime. (Is it any wonder why Israel doesn’t trust us? I don’t trust us.) There’s no reference to missiles, mortars, and rockets from Gaza; no mention of Arab anitsemitism and incitement to violence and genocide; no condemnation of the glorification of terrorists living and dead; no reminder that Abbas himself is a fictitious leader (he has no power in Gaza, and his elected term has long since expired) of a fictitious people (“Palestinian” is a modern invention); no suggestion that neighboring countries, Jordan most particularly, have played a key role in this “unsustainable” status quo—through containment camps and second-class citizenship for refugees (if Arabs among other Arabs can be so labeled, especially after 65 years of refuge). One could easily go on.

So, why not go on? Did you notice, as I did, the internal contradiction in US and Arab criticism? It’s all about the settlements, we’re told—they’re bad, bad, bad. Yet America proposed, and the Arabs seemed to agree, “to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory”. How can settlements be the problem if the Arab position is that 80% of them are okay? Most new construction in Judea and Samaria is also in existing settlements, so that can’t be a problem either.

Israel was wise or lucky to have missed out on this “historic” opportunity. This was always an ego trip for Kerry. Given his ego, it’s no surprise the trip was so long and arduous. Such peace initiatives between the Israelis and the Arabs usually bring about bloodshed (as engagement and flexibility are interpreted as weakness and vulnerability). It’s odd that the one effort that has actually led to anything like peace was Jimmy Carter’s Camp David accord. But then, Israel had no strong cultural ties to the Sinai, and Egypt had no stomach for more war. Until the Arab occupiers of Judea and Samaria experience similar defeat, I believe, they will have no stomach for peace.

Comments (4)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »