Israel Is Not A Real Partner For Peace

[muttly]

So please do tell what the difference between 'haven't and 'didn't' is? Very desperate of you. Hey,they that's all you got,which is nothing.

 

[muttly]

Abbyss has an epiphany? Yeah right.

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Abbas opens his mouth, lies pour out

 

[muttly]

Additionally, I didn't quote the second sentence because it was irrelevant to my point that he didn't check the facts. So adding it as if I left it out on purpose is also sneaky. The only point was that Schulz didn't check the facts and hadn't checked the facts,which is a redundant sentence. It means the same exact thing.

 

[RLENT]

So please do tell what the difference between 'haven't and 'didn't' is?

One is part of an accurate quotation, the other one is isn't ...

Very desperate of you.

LOL ... not at all ...

Just an amusing observation more than anything ...

Hey, they that's all you got, which is nothing.

Oh ... it isn't all I've got ... not by any stretch of the imagination ...

You got smart at one point, choosing to forego actually speaking yourself for the most part, instead relying on copy/pasta ...

Now it appears that you have stepped back into the Danger Zone ... something which I certainly relish ...

 

[RLENT]

Abbyss has an epiphany? Yeah right.

Still citing the moron who thinks that the "Right of Return" can be done away with simply by Israel destroying the homes of the dispossessed and displaced indigenous inhabitants of the land ?

Not exactly real quick on the uptake are ya ?

 

[RLENT]

Additionally, I didn't quote the second sentence because it was irrelevant to my point that he didn't check the facts. So adding it as if I left it out on purpose is also sneaky. The only point was that Schulz didn't check the facts and hadn't checked the facts,which is a redundant sentence. It means the same exact thing.

One is an accurate quote, and one is isn't ...

At any rate, the really relevant thing is that:

1. Schulz made no assertion of fact, he was asking a question, and

2. Schulz was attempting to check the facts (as the actual quote clearly shows) ... when the fanatical Zio-bots went into melt-down mode and stormed out of the Knesset like a bunch of whiney, petulant infants ...

 

[muttly]

Some questions for Abbyss, the road blocker to peace.

From article:



I once wrote up a quick list of questions that anyone meeting Abbas should ask him:


If you are so interested in peace, why did you go out of your way to meet with child-murderer Samir Kuntar?
Why does the PA name institutions after terrorists who targeted innocent civilians?
Why is there still daily incitement on PA TV against Israel?
Do you believe, as Arafat did, that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem? Do you realize that this position is at odds with what Muslims said openly before 1967?
Do you agree with many of your people that there should be no "normalization" with Jews in Israel?
Why did you threaten your citizens who dared to shop in a Jewish-owned supermarket that has low prices?
Recently you said that you believe that the Holocaust occurred. You wrote a book that claimed that it was exaggerated. Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
Do you really believe that Jews are raising dogs and wild boars and training them to attack Arab farms, as you have stated in front of the UN?
Do you really believe that Hamas would accept Israel's existence if you reconcile with them? Do you actually read any of their material?
Why does the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group still exist, if you are the leader of Fatah? How do they get funded?
Do you agree with the Fatah platform that terrorism is legal under international law?
Why does some 6% of the PA budget go towards terrorist prisoners and released terrorists?
Do you consider the Mufti of Jerusalem who collaborated with Hitler to be a hero?
There are lots more, of course:

You used to support Lebanese Palestinians' rights to become citizens in Lebanon. Then you changed your mind and said you are against it. What do you really believe, and why?
More generally, if a Palestinian Arab wants to become a citizen of his Arab host country, should he be allowed?
Do you consider the West Bank to have been occupied by Jordan from 1949-1967? Why or why not?
Did the PLO really nullify the sections of the Palestinian National Covenant that denied Israel's right to exist? If so, can you point me to an official copy of the current charter? It doesn't seem to exist anywhere.
What exactly is the legal basis for your being president for over ten years?
Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Abbas playing out his strategy on destroying Israel - and Israel's Left is doing its part
Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Mahmoud Abbas' plan to destroy Zionism

 

[RLENT]

Still having a hard time grasping how that "QUOTE" feature/function works I see ...

Lemme know if you want a tutorial ...

On the "genius" (EoZ) you seem to want to continue to quote, I've already reviewed and noted on his crack(ed) legal mind with respect to the Palestinain Right of Return ... but let's examine his "basic competencies" a little further and see if we can gain any additional insight on the particular mental derangement that he seems to be afflicted with (aka terminal hasbar-itis) ...

It will serve as a good illustration on how fanatical Zionists lie, misrepresent, and pervert the actual truth of a matter.

For this we'll turn to ever insightful Phan Nguyen, whose uncanny ability to dissect the lies, misrepresentations, and perversions of the truth have previously graced these pages.

Put down the liquid refreshments and old onto your hats ... it's a real hoot:

‘Elder of Ziyon’ fails ICRC reading comprehension test (Updated)

Phan Nguyen on October 11, 2013

“Elder of Ziyon” is the handle of an anonymous blogger who enjoys some popularity among pro-Israel circles. Despite concealing his identity even when he appears in public, he has been cited as an authority by those media sources for whom one’s level of expertise directly correlates to one’s conclusions: in Israel National News, the Jerusalem Post, Tablet magazine, and the Wall Street Journal online editorial section. Elder of Ziyon has also partnered with StandWithUs on collaborative projects.

In a recent blog post entitled “The Hypocrisy of the ICRC and the Definition of ‘Occupation,’” Elder of Ziyon (abbreviated hereafter as EOZ) claims to prove that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) applies a double standard when it comes to Israel.

EOZ bases his case on a 2012 ICRC report entitled Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory. The report summarized the proceedings of three ICRC-sponsored meetings in which international law experts debated the parameters of occupation under international humanitarian law.

According to EOZ, the experts determined that the withdrawal of foreign forces from a territory would signal the end of an occupation. Thus, in light of the Gaza “disengagement” of 2005, the meeting concluded with the

near-total consensus view among international legal scholars surveyed in this ICRC document that Gaza cannot possibly be considered occupied by Israel in a legal sense.

​

EOZ contrasts this alleged finding with the fact that the ICRC still refers to the Gaza Strip as “occupied,” as evidenced in its latest annual report.

In other words, EOZ writes,

the ICRC indeed comes up with one conclusion and then ignores it when it comes to Israel.

​

The EOZ article was tweeted by kindred spirits such as NGO Monitor and Tabletwriter Yair Rosenberg:

​

EOZ even boasted that ICRC staff were reading his blog post:

​

The head of the ICRC’s delegation to Israel and the Occupied Territories, Juan-Pedro Schaerer, left a comment on EOZ’s blog:

The ICRC closely monitors developments in the Gaza Strip, since facts on the ground are crucial to determining whether the elements of effective control required for occupation continue to be met. While it cannot be said that the Gaza Strip is a “classic” situation of occupation, Israel has not entirely relinquished its effective control over the Strip. This control includes amongst other the almost total control over the borders of the Gaza Strip (except for the border with Egypt), the control over the airspace and the entire coast line, the control over who can move out of the Gaza Strip, the control of the population register, control over all the items that can be imported and exported from the Strip and the control over a no-go zone along the Gaza fence inside the Gaza Strip. These facts and others allow ICRC to determine that Israel exercises effective control and therefore remains bound by the law of occupation in the case of Gaza.
This article ignores such essential facts and concludes in a facile way that the ICRC is hypocritical, biased and politically-motivated…
​

And following responses from EOZ and others, Schaerer left a second comment:

[T]he ICRC does not maintain that Israel has retained all elements of authority and governmental functions in Gaza. Rather, our position is that even after the withdrawal of its forces in 2005 Israel continues to exercise effective control over certain key elements of authority in Gaza and therefore remains bound by obligations under the law of occupation within the territorial and functional limits of the competences it has retained. This reflects a functional approach to the law of occupation that emanates from the underlying purpose and rationale of that body of law. In simplified terms it means that to the extent that an occupying power retains control of key functions and authorities in the occupied territory it also remains bound by the relevant provisions of the law of occupation. Where there is control there is responsibility…
​

Here, Schaerer provides the grounds on which the ICRC determines the legal status of the Gaza Strip. However, he does not address EOZ’s interpretation of the ICRC report. In such absence, I have taken it upon myself to demonstrate the breadth of EOZ’s shoddy scholarship. The following, then, is an examination of what the hasbara industry accepts as a groundbreaking exposé.

1. EOZ mischaracterizes the nature and goals of the report

First, the very fact that EOZ attempts to determine an ICRC stance from the report reveals his dishonesty. The ICRC report’s introduction states, in boldface:

It must be noted that the report does not reflect the ICRC’s views on the subjects addressed at the meetings. (page 9)

That disclaimer alone is enough to dismiss the entire EOZ blog post. But let’s go further:

The views expressed during the discussions were not intended to reflect the views of the institutions or States to which the experts belonged. (p. 9)
​

So the views expressed at these meetings were not even representative of any institutional body but rather of the participants “in their personal capacity” (p. 5). What about the references to Gaza?

t should be borne in mind that the purpose of the discussions was not to consider the legal status of the Gaza Strip for the purposes of IHL [international humanitarian law]. Nor was it the case for any other situation. (p. 27)
​

Quite explicitly, the report warned readers not to interpret the discussion in the way that EOZ eventually does. The meeting participants did not come to any collective conclusion on the legal status of the Gaza Strip—which was referenced only in two pages and one appendix in a 150-page report—nor was that the intent.

Instead the goal of the report was, according to the ICRC’s head of the legal division,

to analyse whether and how far the rules of occupation law might have to be reinforced, clarified or developed … [The report] aims only to document the debates that took place during the three meetings of experts. (p. 5)
​

And as noted by the report’s author, ICRC legal advisor Tristan Ferraro,

This report is not exhaustive; its aim is to furnish a faithful narrative of the main points discussed and positions expressed during these three meetings of experts on occupation and other forms of administration of foreign territory … It provides glimpses of the current state of debate on these subject matters. (p. 9)
​

In a later interview, Ferraro added:

The main objective is to assess whether the law of occupation can still meet the needs it was created for. The idea is that a clear assessment of the state of the law could ultimately enhance the protection provided by international humanitarian law for people under military occupation.
​

When asked whether the report “reach[ed] conclusions about the legal status of specific territories or countries,” Ferraro replied,

The report does not focus or even comment on any specific context. It approaches the law of occupation on the basis of issues, not of countries or territories.

When the ICRC needs to determine the status of a specific situation under international humanitarian law, it carries out its own research based on available information, and shares its positions first and foremost with the authorities and other parties concerned.
​

The above provides a single detailed example of how to take apart the Zionist hasbarats lies, misrepresentations, and perversion of the truth.

But the article didn't stop there - it went on to address - IN QUITE SOME DETAIL - each of the following:

2. EOZ mischaracterizes the conclusions of the report ...

3. EOZ mischaracterizes the argument of Adam Roberts ...

4. EOZ falsely claims “consensus” among meeting participants ...

5. EOZ mischaracterizes the scope of the ICRC report ...

6. EOZ dismisses the ICRC report when it is inconvenient ...

7. EOZ relies on questionable authorities ...

... which one may read at the link near the end of this post ... it's great entertainment and good for a few yuks ... even if one is not interested in how far rabid fanatics will go to pervert the truth to serve a political end ...

The article then concludes with the following:

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is not to debate international law or to determine whether the Gaza Strip is still occupied. Ultimately the status of legal occupation is significant to the extent that it imposes obligations on Israel in relation to the Gaza Strip. If those same obligations remain after a technical withdrawal of troops, as some of the experts in the ICRC report suggest, then the status of occupation is less relevant.

Yet here I have sought to challenge EOZ’s reading of the ICRC article, from which we must conclude that EOZ is either grossly negligent or willfully malicious—or a combination of the two. It also does not bode well for those who would rely on EOZ as an authority.

The extent that I do want to posit on the legal status of the Gaza Strip is this:

Before the Gaza “disengagement” of 2005, Israel supporters argued that the Gaza Strip was never occupied under international law. After the Gaza “disengagement” of 2005, the Gaza Strip was no longer occupied under international law. Thus an occupation that previously never existed now no longer exists. The occupation that never happened has now ended.

In fact, the Israeli government currently maintains that the Gaza Strip is not and was never occupied by Israel because Gaza supposedly had no “prior legitimate sovereign.” If that’s the case, then it shouldn’t matter whether there are Israeli forces in Gaza to determine its legal status, and such an argument made in defense of Israel only undermines Israel’s own assertions.

Elder of Ziyon has previously stated that he takes pride in issuing corrections when warranted. Since his article has been proven to be completely invalid, will he issue a full retraction? And will he apologize for misrepresenting the ICRC? Or will he attempt to weasel his way out by changing the focus and qualifying his claims based on some previously undisclosed—and hitherto unconceived—context?

But wait ... it's not over yet ... after being caught and called out, EoZ then attempts to backtrack and walk it back ... which Phan then nails him to the wall on:

Update

Soon after this article was published, Elder of Ziyon (EOZ) appended a preliminary response to his original posting. The response is instructive in how EOZ deflects criticism by changing his story:

On misrepresenting Adam Roberts:

EOZ now:

[Adam] Roberts makes crystal clear that he is saying that the idea of Gaza being considered occupied after Israel’s withdrawal is problematic. [emphases mine]
​

EOZ then:

In other words, there is near-total consensus view among international legal scholars surveyed in this ICRC document that Gaza cannot possibly be considered occupied by Israel in a legal sense. [emphases mine]
​

There is a considerable difference between saying “Gaza cannot possibly be considered occupied by Israel,” and now saying “Gaza being considered occupied…is problematic.”

And to be specific, the whole of Roberts’s appendix, entitled “The Termination of Military Occupations,” concerns the problems associated with determining when an occupation truly ends, rather than whether it is okay to call something an occupation.

EOZ now believes he can affirm Roberts’s context by reprinting the whole paragraph, while I insist that one should read the entire appendix. It is clear that EOZ has not done so, since he previously confused the appendix for a conclusion and failed to notice the byline credited to “ADAM ROBERTS,” all caps, in 15-point Helvetica—consequently mistaking one person for a “near-total consensus” of thirty-six people.

On misrepresenting the provenance of the report

EOZ now:

I don’t think I characterized the report as being reflective of the ICRC’s official views, as Nguyen says.
​

EOZ then:

Because the ICRC acts like it is the ultimate authority on international humanitarian law, so when it says Gaza is occupied - against its own legal reasoning - it has gravitas. [emphasis in original!]
​

Surely EOZ remembers writing that since he recently scrubbed it from his posting (cached version here).

On misrepresenting the purpose of the report

EOZ now:

I read the report as being an attempt to determine the laws of occupation, period.
​

Despite offering the vaguest possible explanation (determine what about the laws of occupation?), EOZ still gets it wrong. Again, from the author of the report:

The main objective is to assess whether the law of occupation can still meet the needs it was created for.
​

Original article:

'Elder of Ziyon' fails ICRC reading comprehension test

#muffyandhismorons muffyandhissquadofjibberingidjits

 

[muttly]

Danger Zone. Yeah right. More like the Twilight Zone or the Anti Manger Zone.
#YlentlbasherandhisYlentlbasherminions.

 

[RLENT]

Danger Zone. Yeah right. More like the Twilight Zone or the Anti Manger Zone.

Nah ... that's the territory you and your hasbarat buddies Elder of Moron and "Crazy Charlie" It's-1933-in-Munich have staked out and laid claim to ...

 

[RLENT]

Ground-breaking article @ ynetnews (not exactly a left-of-center news site) by Nahum Barnea - who is considered by many to be Israel's No. 1 print media journalist - of US officials on the breakdown in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

If you thought Kerry's "apartheid" comment was a really big deal, you ain't seen nuthin' ...

Barnea's questions are in bold and the US Officials replies non-bold:

Inside the talks' failure: US officials open up

In an exclusive interview, American officials directly connected to the talks reveal the real reason for the collapse of the negotiations.

Nahum Barnea

Published: 05.02.14, 23:51 / Israel News

The American version of why the current round of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians failed is fundamentally different to the one presented by Israeli officials. The list of those to blame for this failure is also very different. From the US perspective, the issue of the settlements was largely to blame.​

Senior American officials involved in Secretary of State John Kerry's peace push this week agreed to share with me their take on the talks' failure.

They had one condition, in line with instructions they had received - that I didn't name them. But what they told me is the closest thing to an official American version of what happened.

The American team will be disbanded in the coming days - most of it, or all of it. Kerry has yet to decide what he is going to do - whether he will wait several months and then try to renew his effort, or release the principles of an agreement formulated by the Americans.

By releasing the American principles, Kerry would force the two sides to play offense - each side in its own internal battleground - but in doing so, he also risks exposing himself to criticism over the many errors he made along the way.

Using advanced software, the Americans drew a border outline in the West Bank that gives Israel sovereignty over some 80 percent of the settlers that live there today. The remaining 20 percent were meant to evacuate. In Jerusalem, the proposed border is based on Bill Clinton's plan - Jewish neighborhoods to Israel, Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians.

The Israeli government made no response to the American plan, and avoided drawing its own border outline.

The criticism against the Israeli government is presented in terms of wounds inflicted by a friend who could still be trusted: Israel is very dear to them, but the wounds are deep.

Netanyahu-Obama rift

Let's go back to the beginning. Was this round not doomed for failure from day one?

"The negotiations had to start with a decision to freeze settlement construction. We thought that we couldn't achieve that because of the current makeup of the Israeli government, so we gave up. We didn't realize Netanyahu was using the announcements of tenders for settlement construction as a way to ensure the survival of his own government. We didn't realize continuing construction allowed ministers in his government to very effectively sabotage the success of the talks.

"There are a lot of reasons for the peace effort's failure, but people in Israel shouldn't ignore the bitter truth - the primary sabotage came from the settlements. The Palestinians don't believe that Israel really intends to let them found a state when, at the same time, it is building settlements on the territory meant for that state. We're talking about the announcement of 14,000 housing units, no less. Only now, after talks blew up, did we learn that this is also about expropriating land on a large scale. That does not reconcile with the agreement.

"At this point, it's very hard to see how the negotiations could be renewed, let alone lead to an agreement. Towards the end, Abbas demanded a three-month freeze on settlement construction. His working assumption was that if an accord is reached, Israel could build along the new border as it pleases. But the Israelis said no."

Did President Obama's decision to distance himself from the negotiations contribute to the talks' failure?

"The president supported Kerry throughout the duration of the talks. The clearest example of that was his willingness to prepare for Jonathan Pollard's release. Such a move wouldn't have helped his popularity in the American security system.

"Moreover, when one of the president's aides accused Kerry of the talks' failure during a background briefing with the New York Times, the president made an exception and publicly supported his secretary of state.

"It is true that the president was doubtful. That was obvious from the start. He questioned the willingness of leaders on both sides to take the necessary risks. In the end, he realized he was right."

In hindsight, had the president been more involved, could an accord have been reached?

"No. Usually, the president's involvement is very important. We all remember how President Jimmy Carter mediated between Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat in Camp David; we all remember President Clinton's crucial involvement in the talks between Benjamin Netanyahu and Yasser Arafat at the Wye River summit (in 1998). But this case is different. Kerry has invested a lot in his personal relationship with Netanyahu. They talked on the phone three times a week and sometimes three times a day. There were video conference calls and close to 70 meetings. The relationship of trust between Kerry and Netanyahu was crucial to ensure that Netanyahu tempered his positions and moved forward. The president does not have the time for such a long-term effort - and besides, there are many rifts between Obama and Netanyahu. Every negotiation is a special case. This round was a very special case."

Ya'alon's attack

The leaders on both sides are spoiled. They make decisions that mean paying a political price only when there's a knife at their throat. A superpower like the United States has convincing means of pressure, but you avoided using them.

"There was a massive effort on our part to pull the wagon out of the deep quicksand it was stuck in. But the reality here hit us hard. Neither side had a sense of urgency. Kerry was the only one who felt a sense of urgency, and that was not enough."

Compare the current round of talks to Henry Kissinger's efforts after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, an effort that led to disengagement agreements between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Egypt. Compare it to James Baker's effort after the first Gulf War, an effort that led to the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991.

"At the end of a war there is a sense of urgency," they said. And then one of them added bitterly: "I guess we need another intifada to create the circumstances that would allow progress.

"20 years after the Oslo Accords, new game rules and facts on the ground were created that are deeply entrenched. This reality is very difficult for the Palestinians and very convenient for Israel."

What, you didn't know this in advance?

"We knew. But we willingly pushed our lack of faith aside."

Why?

"Because Kerry believed and we believed that if not now, then when? It was a desperate effort. Kerry thought of the future - he believed, and still does, that if the two sides can't reach an accord, Israel is going to be in a lot worse shape than it is today."

Were you surprised when you discovered that the Israelis don't really care what happens in the negotiations?

"Yes, we were surprised. It surprised us all along the way. When (Moshe) Ya'alon, your defense minister, said that the only thing Kerry wants is to win a Nobel Prize, the insult was great. We were doing this for you and for the Palestinians. Of course, there were also American interests at play.

"A lot of people told us - 'don't stop. Keep going.' We told them: 'It's in your hands. Take responsibility for your own fate.' But, stuck in their own ways, they preferred we do their job for them. Public apathy was one of our biggest problems.

"One of the Palestinians who participated in the talks told an Israeli participant: 'You don't see us. We're transparent, we're hollow.' He had a point. After the second intifada ended and the separation barrier was built, the Palestinians turned into ghosts in the eyes of the Israelis - they couldn't see them anymore."

It almost sounds like you wish for an intifada.

"Quite the opposite, it would be a tragedy. The Jewish people are supposed to be smart; it is true that they're also considered a stubborn nation. You're supposed to know how to read the map: In the 21st century, the world will not keep tolerating the Israeli occupation. The occupation threatens Israel's status in the world and threatens Israel as a Jewish state."

The world is being self-righteous. It closes its eyes to China's takeover of Tibet, it stutters at what Russia's doing to Ukraine.

"Israel is not China. It was founded by a UN resolution. Its prosperity depends on the way it is viewed by the international community."

Abbas' misgivings

The method you chose - talks based on personal relationships - has failed.

"In the first six months, there were bilateral talks under our auspices. The two sides met about 20 times. In one of those meetings, special US envoy to the talks Martin Indyk left the room and the two sides were left alone.

"The talks allowed us to define the gaps between the two sides. In December, we realized it was time to present our own ideas. We held separate discussions, with Israel and with the Palestinians. Most of the talks were between Kerry and Netanyahu, in an effort to convince him to change his positions and bridge the chasm.

"At this point the Palestinians were happy. They saw a rift had been created between Kerry and Netanyahu. The rift came out to the open when Bogey Ya'alon launched his personal attacks on Kerry.

"But while we were focusing on efforts to soften the Israeli side, announcements of new housing tenders in settlements limited Abbas' ability to show flexibility. He lost his trust in the talks. The worst part was when Netanyahu said Abbas had agreed to a deal of prisoners for settlement construction. It wasn't in line with the truth.

"Abbas went into these talks a skeptic. Actually, they were all skeptics, but his doubts focused on Netanyahu. The Oslo Accords were Netanyahu's creation. [rlent note: This is actually a mistranslation from Hebrew, based on a misunderstanding of who the personal pronoun "his" was referring to - the sentence should have read: The Oslo Accords were Abbas' creation. ... although that statement is not even entirely accurate.] Abbas watched how Oslo opened the door to 400,000 Israelis to settle beyond the Green Line. He wasn't willing to bear it anymore.

"And there were other things. Israel presented its security needs in the West Bank: it demanded complete control over the territories. This told the Palestinians that nothing was going to change on the security front. Israel was not willing to agree to time frames - its control of the West Bank would continue forever.

"Abbas reached the conclusion that there was nothing for him in such an agreement. He's 79 years old. He has reached the last chapter of his life. He's tired. He was willing to give the process one final chance, but found, according to him, that he has no partner on the Israeli side. His legacy won't include a peace agreement with Israel.

"In February, Abbas arrived at a Paris hotel for a meeting with Kerry. He had a lingering serious cold. 'I'm under a lot of pressure,' he complained. 'I'm sick of this.' He rejected all of Kerry's ideas. A month later, in March, he was invited to the White House. Obama presented the American-formulated principles verbally - not in writing. Abbas refused.

"The claim on your side that Abbas was avoiding making decisions is not true. He wasn't running away, he was just stuck."

Livni's bravery

Tzipi Livni claimed after the talks' collapse that Abbas wouldn't move an inch from his known positions, while Netanyahu showed flexibility.

"It's true that Netanyahu moved (away from his positions), but he wouldn't move more than an inch. We had to put a great deal of effort into this. When we tried to move Abbas, we couldn't. As we said, he was shutting down, locking into his positions. 'I made a lot of concessions,' he said. 'The Israelis didn't know how to appreciate it,' he complained."

What concessions?

"He agreed to a demilitarized state; he agreed to the border outline so 80 percent of settlers would continue living in Israeli territory; he agreed for Israel to keep security sensitive areas (mostly in the Jordan Valley - NB) for five years, and then the United States would take over. He accepted the fact that in the Israeli perception, the Palestinians would never be trustworthy.

"He also agreed that the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would remain under Israeli sovereignty, and agreed that the return of Palestinians to Israel would depend on Israeli willingness. 'Israel won't be flooded with refugees,' he promised.

"He told us: 'Tell me if there's another Arab leader that would have agreed to what I agreed to. I won't make any more concessions until Israel agrees to the three following terms:

• Outlining the borders would be the first topic under discussion. It would be agreed upon within three months.
• A timeframe would be set for the evacuation of Israelis from sovereign Palestinian territories (Israel had agreed to complete the evacuation of Sinai within three years).
• Israel will agree to have East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.

The Israelis would not agree to any of the three demands."

This is understandable, though. Any one of these demands would've caused the Netanyahu government to collapse.

"That's true, these are very painful compromises. If you're looking for failures - this was one of them: We couldn't confront the two sides with the painful solutions that were required of them. The Israelis didn't have to face the possibility of splitting Jerusalem into two capitals; they didn't have to deal with the meaning of a full withdrawal and the end of the occupation."

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."

What was Tzipi Livni's contribution to the talks? What was Yitzhak Molcho's? (Molcho, Netanyahu's lawyer and relative, was appointed Livni's babysitter)

"Tzipi Livni was a heroine. She fought with all of her might to promote the agreement. Molcho was a big problem for her. He undermined her repeatedly. Every time she tried to move forward, he stopped her."

(In these very pages in February, the secret axis Molcho started with Bassil Akel, a former Palestinian official and a friend of Abbas, was revealed. Akel, who lives in London, met with Molcho secretly from time to time behind the backs of the other negotiating partners. At a certain point, Molcho claimed that he had reached a series of understandings with Akel. These understandings evaporated on their way to Abbas.)

Ariel's provocations

The last chapter of the American initiative was borderline pathetic. Kerry realized an agreement would not be reached. He tried to at least get an agreement on both sides to continue the talks. The Palestinians demanded the prisoners Kerry promised them, including Israeli-Arab murderers. Netanyahu demanded something in return. Kerry persuaded Obama to give him Pollard.

And then came the Housing and Construction Ministry's announcement of building tenders for more than 700 housing units in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood.

Abbas lost interest. He turned to the reconciliation talks with Hamas and to the question of who would inherit his mantle. According to the Americans, this is the reason for his recently launched public front against Mohammed Dahlan.

The Americans understood from their Israeli counterparts that the Gilo tenders announcement was an intentional act of sabotage, one of many, by Housing Minister Uri Ariel, an extremist who opposes any agreement with the Palestinians. Ariel denied it. He claimed he didn't even know about the tenders.

Article continues in next post ...

 

[RLENT]

From an American perspective, what will be the consequences of stopping the talks? Will the threat of a boycott against Israel increase?

"It's hard to predict. The international community, especially the European Union, avoided any action during the negotiations. Now, a race will begin to fill the void. Israel might be facing quite a problem.

"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.

"There's a bigger problem threatening Israel in the immediate future. This is a very concrete threat. If Israel tries to impose economic sanctions on the Palestinians, it could boomerang. The West Bank economy will collapse, and then Abbas will say 'I don't want this anymore. Take this from me.' There's great potential for deterioration here, which could end with the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority. Israeli soldiers will have to administer the lives of 2.5 million Palestinians, to their mothers' chagrin. The donating countries will stop paying up, and the bill of $3 billion a year will have to be paid by your Finance Ministry."

Abbas and Saeb Erekat chose to make comments about Holocaust Memorial Day this week. They said it was the greatest crime in history. Netanyahu didn't believe them. The right slammed Abbas with accusations that he was a terrorist and a Holocaust denier.

They asked not to give their opinion on Netanyahu's comments. "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."

What will the United States do now?

"We're taking a time-out to think and reevaluate. We mean to draw our own conclusions. Kerry's willingness to return and make an effort depends on the sides' willingness to show seriousness. Abbas' conditions were rejected out of hand by Israel. Perhaps someone in Israel will reconsider their positions? Why is a three-month settlement construction freeze such a big deal? Why not draw a map? You have a great interest in an accord reached by mutual consent, rather than one reached as a result of external pressures. Drawing a map should've been stage one."

Will Kerry present the principles you formulated; the map, the security arrangements, the agreement's components?

"It's still a possibility. The other possibility is a period of reassessment, reevaluation."

In 1975, after then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin rejected the American demands, then-secretary of state Kissinger announced a period of reevaluation. The diplomatic and security relations between Israel and the United States were frozen. In Israel, Rabin was hailed as a hero. The right worshipped him. After several months, a ladder was found to allow Rabin to climb down from the tree.

The Obama administration is soft. It's different from the Nixon administration, as Kerry is different from Kissinger.

What kind of reevaluation will Kerry choose?

"We don't know. Kerry hasn't decided yet."

Translated from Hebrew by Yaara Shalom.

Inside the talks' failure: US officials open up - Israel News, Ynet News

 

[muttly]

Kerry is an embarrassment.

 

[muttly]

This women has the right idea.
Caroline Glick: Israel Should Look to One-State Solution With Palestinians

 

[RLENT]

This women has the right idea.

I understand that Anders_Breivik - the psychopathic Norwegian mass-murderer - was quite a fan of the racist, ethno-supremacist Glick ... not terribly surprising I guess ...

Richard Silverstein describes her - quite rightly - as "doyenne of the extreme settler right":

Caroline Glick Gets Down and Dirty With Gates of Vienna and Other Racist Anti-Jihadi Friends

by RICHARD SILVERSTEIN on OCTOBER 23, 2011

When Anders Breivik was getting down in the dumps about the Muslim takeover of Eurabia, he could always turn for succor to the pages of Gates of Vienna, where he would find the sort of reassuring anti-Muslim race hatred that soothed his fevered brow. It was the type of vile anti-jihadi rhetoric that served as the intellectual fuel for his terror attack in Norway, which happened several months ago. To be clear, the author of Gates of Vienna is not himself a terrorist as Breivik is. He just helped shape Breivik's intellectual and political world view. Perhaps not making the blog an accessory to terror, but rather an accessory after the fact.

Terrorism-inspiring Gates of Vienna hearts Caroline Glick​

One of Breivik's favorite Jews was Caroline Glick, a senior editor at the Jerusalem Post, and doyenne of the extreme settler right. Glick is one of those responsible for the garbage peddled by Latma, which produced the We Con the World video which figuratively danced on the grave of the Mavi Marmara dead. She also produced a video of an Israeli actor (had he been in blackface it would’ve been a perfect touch) mocking Barack Obama while singing songs about how much he, as the U.S. president, hated Jews.

Now, comes news that Caroline Glick is beloved not only of Anders Breivik, but of the blogger, Ned May, who writes Gates of Vienna under the pseudonym, Baron Bodissey. A few days ago May publicly recognized Glick for the helpful tips she's sent his way. In addition, the blogger explicitly thanks Glick for permitting him to arrange for translation of one of her Jerusalem Post editorials into Norwegian, no doubt so all the families of the terror victims could be blamed yet again for not maintaining a proper bulwark between themselves and the onrushing Muslim hordes.

If Gates of Vienna republished her material without her permission who could blame Glick. But when she explicitly approves of her work appearing in one of the most incendiary, Muslim hating websites in the world, that is unconscionable.

I never found out who wrote the Jerusalem Post editorial just after Breivik's rampage which blamed, not the racist killer, but Norway's permissive immigration policy. This supposedly allowed the dirty masses to reach Norway's shores and so enrage the killer that he was forced to do what any red-blooded Christian European should do. My hunch is that Glick either wrote this jewel herself or had a large hand in it. Note, the Post's managing editor was forced to write a half-assed apology when the dreck contained in the editorial single-handedly threatened to unsettle Israel-Norway relations.

The Post fired Larry Derfner for speaking a few unpalatable truths about terrorism, both Israeli and Palestinian, that even Israeli defense ministers have admitted in their more unbuttoned moments, yet the shmateh [means rag] worships the ground on which Caroline Glick walks. Disgusting. Vile and disgusting.

Original article:

Caroline Glick Gets Down and Dirty With Gates of Vienna and Other Racist Anti-Jihadi Friends Tikun-Olam Tikun Olam

After everyone got a good look at Adolf Schiklgruber's handiwork some seventy or so years ago, most relatively sane folks figured out that ethno-supremacist racism isn't the sane way to go ...

Unfortunately, Glick isn't one of them ...

BTW - I don't disagree with the idea of 1 State, 1 Person, 1 Vote ... in fact, that's my preferred outcome ...

But not under the parameters that a racist, ethno-supremacist like Glick would like to impose ...

Caroline Glick's One-State Solution - The Daily Beast

 

[RLENT]

Kerry is an embarrassment.

Not nearly as embarrassing as Bibi ... who, after all the aid and assistance the US has given Israel, has chosen to spit in our eyes ... repeatedly ...

BTW ... how do you feel about Martin Indyk ?

 

[RLENT]

BTW ... those unprovoked "price tag" attacks against Palestinians (Muslim or Christian) committed by the fanatical, racist settlers that Glick loves so much ?

Apparently the US Government is now correctly designating them for what they actually are: ... terrorism ...

Crimes by Israeli extremists against Palestinians spread into Israel and went largely unpunished last year, according to the U.S. State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism for 2013, released on Wednesday.

Within the chapter on Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem is a sub-section dedicated to "price tag" attacks, defined as "property crimes and violent acts by extremist Jewish individuals and groups in retaliation for activity they deemed to be anti-settlement." According to the report, citing the United Nations and NGO sources, such acts were "largely unprosecuted."

There were 399 attacks by Israeli settler extremists that resulted in Palestinian injuries or property damage, including five vandalized mosques and there churches in Jerusalem and the West Bank. ...

(Article continues at link below)

U.S. report: 'Price tag' attacks spread into Israel, go unpunished - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz

 

[RLENT]

From Israeli Barak Ravid writing @ Haaretz:

U.S. envoy Indyk likely to resign amid talks blowup

Special envoy for peace talks said to blame Israel for negotiations failure.

By Barak Ravid | May 4, 2014 | 12:32 AM

The U.S. special envoy for peace talks, Martin Indyk, is considering resigning following the blowup of talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and in light of President Barack Obama's intention to suspend American mediation, according to Israeli officials in Jerusalem who are close to the matter. The officials asked to remain anonymous due to the issue's sensitivity.

The officials said Indyk had already informed the Brookings Institute – where he is vice president and director for foreign policy – that he might soon be returning to his post, from which he took a leave of absence nine months ago. Two senior officials at Brookings approached by Haaretz with questions on the matter each responded, "No comment."

In Jerusalem, it is believed that Indyk is the senior American official – anonymously quoted in a report published Friday in the Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth – mainly blaming Israel for the failure of the talks. According to the report, the senior official claimed that "the main damage to the peace talks comes from the settlements," and that, during the talks, "Netanyahu did not move more than an inch." ...

(Article continues at link below)

U.S. envoy Indyk likely to resign amid talks blowup - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz

Well, ya can't say we didn't try to warn Yossi Israeli of what is coming ... and how to avoid it ...

 

[muttly]

I understand that Anders_Breivik - the psychopathic Norwegian mass-murderer - was quite a fan of the racist, ethno-supremacist Glick ... not terribly surprising I guess ...

Richard Silverstein describes her - quite rightly - as "doyenne of the extreme settler right":


Original article:

Caroline Glick Gets Down and Dirty With Gates of Vienna and Other Racist Anti-Jihadi Friends Tikun-Olam Tikun Olam

After everyone got a good look at Adolf Schiklgruber's handiwork some seventy or so years ago, most relatively sane folks figured out that ethno-supremacist racism isn't the sane way to go ...

Unfortunately, Glick isn't one of them ...

BTW - I don't disagree with the idea of 1 State, 1 Person, 1 Vote ... in fact, that's my preferred outcome ...

But not under the parameters that a racist, ethno-supremacist like Glick would like to impose ...

Caroline Glick's One-State Solution - The Daily Beast

I figured as much that some would have a problem with her real solution. The fact that the Jews are having too many babies is a deal breaker I guess for some. A bridge too far.

 

[muttly]

I agree with Ted Cruz. Kerry should resign.

Doug Ross @ Journal: ANOTHER NEW LOW FOR JOHN KERRY: "We need another intifada" to force Israel to surrender its sovereignty