"Rightly or wrongly, Obama has made the settlement issue a test of his
credibility, and if he backs down then all the progress he has made
will wash away instantly. That makes this a pivotal moment, whether or
not an Obama administration focused on Iran wants it to be one. Most
Palestinians, with their well-earned skepticism of American policy,
expect Obama to back down. Most Israelis probably do as well. And that
would be tragic, because without much publicity Obama's pressure has
already started generating some important results on the ground — not
just Netanyahu's carefully hedged uttering of an emasculated two state
formula, but the significant easing of checkpoints and roadblocks in
the West Bank, the lifting of some of the more ludicrous parts of the
blockade of Gaza, the release of Hamas prisoners
(including its Parliamentarians) by both the Palestinian Authority and
Israel, and reports that the Egyptians are planning an unveiling of a
Hamas-Fatah unity government agreement on July 7.
[...]
It's important to again emphasize the crucial context here: Obama's
pressure has actually been quietly working. Lost in the public
pyrotechnics over Netanyahu’s grudging utterance of an emasculated two
state phraseology, Israel has over the last few weeks actually been
making serious changes to the checkpoints and roadblocks in the West
Bank and to the blockade of Gaza. The siege of cities such as Nablus
has been lifted, major choke-points on key West Bank roads have been
significantly opened, and journalists report being able to drive to
Jenin without being stopped at a checkpoint. This is new.
[...]
Obama has to stand tough on the settlement expansions if he hopes to
not squander the tentative gains of the last few weeks — and, more
broadly, to see his administration's credibility on Israeli-Palestinian
issues shattered forever. This is going to be hard to do, since the
administration is badly distracted by the events in Iran and might not
see this as a good time or an important enough issue to pick a costly fight with Netanyahu. But that would be a huge mistake, because credibility lost here will be very, very hard to recover. Mitchell's abrupt cancelation of a meeting with Netanyahu should only be the beginning:
he and Obama need to be ready to take concrete steps to force Israel to
back down, or see all of the tentative progress they've seen made
evaporate. I think they may surprise a lot of people."
Top Bush advisor validates Israeli claim there was agreement on settlements Elliot Abrams, former deputy national security advisor, says Obama administration 'is wrong' to deny existence of understanding between Sharon, Bush on natural growth in settlements… http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3737212...
"…Israel has over the last few weeks actually been making serious changes to the checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank and to the blockade of Gaza. The siege of cities such as Nablus has been lifted, major choke-points on key West Bank roads have been significantly opened, and journalists report being able to drive to Jenin without being stopped at a checkpoint. This is new… Yes, I saw this — and it is certainly good news. However, all this can change in an instant. What worries me — was this done as [part of?] some kind of Israel/DC [Iranian] bargain? Netanyahu giving a PR nod to give the Palestinians more freedom [for the moment], and in return Netanyahu and AIPAC gets Ross into the NSC? At what cost is all this?
Of course there was an agreement. It was too easy to verify for the Israelis to lie about it. Now Obama will have to continue to lie and say there was no agreement or just not live up to a previous agreement.
And what agreement might that be? What gives George W. Bush any authority to continue to build illegal settlements in defiance of the UN, international law, and the right of the Palestinians to not have their land annexed by an occupying force? To suggest that there was a secret agreement brokered by neo-con Zionist Elliott Abrams is to suggest a corruption of America's role (and more tellingly, Dennis Ross' role) as an honest broker in the I/P situation. We elected Obama because we wanted to wash away the corruption of the Bush years. Thedhimmi suggests we maintain another 4 years of neo-con policies in the Middle East, and pretend to be an honest broker in the Middle East when our AIPAC-WINEP lobby is furiously working behind the scenes to confiscate Palestinians private land with IDF-modified bulldozers. Thanks for the kind invitation, thedhimmi, but I'll pass.
Replying to Seham: I wouldn't trust a word that comes out of this guys mouth: "Abrams has moved back and forth between government and a web of right-wing think tanks and policy institutes, holding positions as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), advisory council member of the American Jewish Committee, and charter member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Abrams is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal. He was indicted by a special prosecutor for intentionally deceiving Congress about the Reagan administration's role in supporting the Contras—including his own central role in the Iran-Contra arms deal."
This comment system has 'real' problems. I can't seem to post ref. links?
If you use firefox, you might have more success.
Obama need only fire Stuart Levey and personally add the IDF to the list of organizations designated as aiding and abetting terrorism. As Zionist plutocrats and intelligentsia (including) Levey are hauled off to jail, Obama's Israel problem will dissipate: [Khaleej Times] US Charities Paying for Sending Aid to Palestinians. Karin Friedemann writes:
Even now, Elliott Abrams shows himself as Israel-first, Zionist huckster, with a lack of dignity. Now he's using Israeli media to emply smashmouth tactics against the American president while providing aid and comfort to Lieberman's racist agenda. He was Israel's agent during the GWB years ("You're Welcome, America!") in promoting "natural growth" which was a scam meant to bring in as many immigrants to annex Palestinian private land as possible until a two-state solution is simply . . . non-viable. You can imagine Abrams laying awake at night, muttering to himself — "Man, we're almost there. A greater Israel is within reach. Ethnic cleansing . . . check." (CONTINUED)
PART 2 The Project for the New American Century dreamed up the "Clean Break" document that led a dopey George W. Bush to commit American lives to fight a war in the Middle East against Iraq that was purely in the interests of the PNAC-WINEP-JPPPI cabal, but was contrary to America's security interests. Electing Obama? Now that's a "clean break" from the AIPAC "special relationship" hasbara that we desperately needed — change we really can believe in.
But I am using firefox — after having problems with Internet Explorer… plus, the problem doesn't always happen. I don't have problems with any other sites.
Elliot Abrams has zero standing. He is not Secretary of State. He does not have access to presidential level documents, unless he is doing it illegally. He is basically calling Hillary Clinton, George Mitchell, and Barack Obama liars. Considering that he was indicted, convicted, and pardoned by Bush I on two counts of lying to Congress, he has the standing of a dead snake to make any pronouncement at all.
Is anyone able to get to the this link from the article, or has it been blocked? http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/us-remains-...
Now -That's Weird.
I hope obama pressure the un and other to hold stedfast, the economical situation is already terrible and the pressure cooker is on the occupation of Palestine to end with real certainty and have new elections and fresh faces not tied to the corruption and maybe just maybe the word peace may be in the future. However it always seems to be a media play and administration play on the wording used and lableing of the resistance as some form of terrorism that the occupiers are intitled under laws as well though not a single resolution has been carried out by them ever (to my recolection) but yet the burden is on the victims and resistance to find other means as the media machine that has painted them along with the administrations as terrorist in the first place
I think that Obama sees the key issue on the Israeli side as a settlement freeze, and that was the message he gave to Netanyahu on his recent visit to Washington. I think Abbas got a message too when he was in Washington, and it wasn't the nebulous "fighting terrorism" stuff, it was: there's going to be a final status agreement, so put a Palestinian unity govt together that can give an authoritative answer on final status issues, and we don't mind so much how you do it. Any formula that will get Hamas into a unity govt that can nominally accept prior commitments is OK with us. I think that accounts for what Abbas has been doing since he got home from Washington, ie ordering the release of Hamas prisoners arrested by the PA; having the neither-confirmed-nor-denied meeting with Khalid Meshaal last week; the sudden confidence that there will be an Egyptian-brokered Fatah-Hamas agreement in the first week of July; and the announcement today that after 20 years of umm-ing and aw-ing Fatah is finally going to hold its Party conference, which will break the logjam that has paralysed the party's internal workings, in Bethlehem on 4 August. Something is happening here. I think it's unduly US-centric to assume this is really an "Obama effect", but I think on the Palestinian side there is at least a *perceived* Obama effect, ie the perception that something is going to happen, and everybody needs to get their stuff in order because when it starts you'd better be ready. Netanyahu on the other hand seems to have a tin ear on all of this. He's not a stupid person, and he has plenty of contacts in Washington, yet he's acting so out of touch. Perhaps he just doesn't have any room to manoeuvre at all between what Obama expects of him and what his coalition partners will allow.
Why do comments just shown as posted to the commenter vanish so quickly?
This occupation and complete hiden genocidal backbone that has been supported with tax payers money and allowed lobbyist to completely fill seats of our government is running amuck to say the least. The brainwashing and dumbing down of america for so long has paid off well. Can and does some one have a complete list from the beging of all the players and administrations and branches which have played a major role in being hijacked and minipulated into some crazy idiology and yahoo now backing it with americas indians and the reservations. (which show the real purposes behind the strategic outpost and land grabs as permanent) After seeing an settler girl no older than 10 writting on a bomb a message, this is a present for the children of gaza,
Did somebody use the words "Elliot Abrams:" and "validates" in the same sentence?
I don't know. It's a bug of the commenting system. I sometimes make comments that show when I first post them, but are gone within minutes, so I can't respond to subsequent comments which I know exist because they are referenced on the parent thread. The invisible comments usually show up for me in about 24 hours, but by then the debate has long-since moved on.
I cringed at the nazi like tactics that have far over reached that of the third reich with all the zionist occupiers of Palestine have done, and the world is painted them as the nice ones. If they omnly had an outlet of daily living in the occupied Palestine. I think there should be only one state and give them all equal rights under this ….state or country or occupation. This abass situation is similar to the grand mufti who sold them short in the first place, he was the british puppet if I recall correctly. And why is britain not forced the end of the occupation it was them that had a hand in it as well. How could this twisted mindset be allowed to breath what ever storys as truthful facts by the news and cable people needs a counterpunch show with the implicated people in government to come on and answer to the implicvations and facts on the street of reality.
You know why Israel is afraid of true "final status" negotiations? The Palestinians will take the deal!
Exactly, Diane. Anyway, I think your post is insightful. Thanks.
ALL SETTLEMENTS MUST BE REMOVED AT ONCE AND A BOARDER WALL TO KEEP THE SETTLERS OUT MAY NEED BE PLACED INSTEAD OF THE ONE WITH THE CURRENT PATH. ALL SETTLEMENTS MUST GO AND RIGHT OF RETURN AND REPARATION BEFORE ANY RECOGNITION CAN TRUELY TAKE PLACE….THE OCCUPIERS MUST RECOGNIZE PALESTINE AND ADMIT THE ON SLAUGHT THEY CAUSED UNDER FALSE PRETENSE TO DEFRAUD AND ETHNICALLY CLEANSE. KEEP A PARTITION WALL UP ALONG THE 47 BOARDER NOW AND MAKE JERUSALEM INTERNATIONAL WITH NO OCCUPATION ADMINISTRATORS LIVING IN THE OLD CITY STOLEN PLACES.
Precisely. It is not the Palestinian position that is out of line with what international law demands and international consensus expects on the I-P conflict, but Israel's. Israel bet the farm on having the US always shielding them from having to do what everyone know they would have to do for an end to the conflict. Now we get to see how good a bet that was.
"…he has plenty of contacts in Washington…" Yes, he most definitely does — and I would never underestimate that fact. "…yet he's acting so out of touch… Maybe, maybe not. We shouldn't dismiss the fact we have many influential hardcore zionist Jews in Congress, as well as some sold out influential creeps, like Hoyer, Kirk, Ros-Lehtinen, Kyl & others that are not there necessarily because of AIPAC money, but they believe in their gut whether through tribal religious loyality, Middle East security strategic positioning, or whatever reason is in their self-interested head that those settlements need to stay.
Obama believes that peace is possible and considers trust-building efforts as essential in that. Netanyahu believes that peace is impossible and regards trust-building as irrelevant. He is committed to law, but only to Israeli law, which is very progressive in intent, and far less in application. That is the 100,000 question. Is peace possible? The next 100,000 question is can some concensus to pursue peace be constructed. It is VERY EASY to distract. Consider Hamas and likud over the last 17 years since Oslo.
I had a response to Witty; I agreed with all he said except his characterization of Israeli law–as implemented. But my posts have been disappearing after they were shown as posted. I see I'm not alone from others' comments.
I can on IE7 from UK.
How about talking to the new Keith Weissman, who is quoted on HuffPo defending Obama against AIPAC initiatives to get Congress to blunder in Iran? 2:16 PM ET — Congress jumps into Iran again. "A Republican effort on Tuesday to cut off U.S. loans to some companies doing business with Iran will bring Congress deeper into the fray over the U.S. response to the Iranian elections," the congressional paper CQ reported earlier this week. Adam Blickstein of the National Security Network, who calls the Iran provision "red meat for Ahmadinejad and the Khamenei regime," notes today that it was approved by committee and now is attached to a "must-pass" spending bill. The man behind the measure is Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who has been highlighting the fact that the Israel lobby group AIPAC supports the measure. But Blickstein notes: Keith Weissman, AIPAC's former top Iran analyst, strenuously disagreed with such initiatives, at least for right now. "The best policy now is, 'Do no harm,'" he said. Neither sanctions nor diplomatic engagement has meaning now, since the country is in internal turmoil, Weissman explained: "What AIPAC is doing here is hurting the very people the U.S. and the rest of world would like to assist in Iran. Any kind of message like this just proves what the bad guys in Iran have been saying to their people for years. It makes it easier for them to hurt the people Obama is trying to help.
Oh hell….all Israel watchers know that Abrams is an Israeli agent..always has been. Read his book…he wrote that…."jews are to stand apart from all 'others' and maintain seperateness in the nations they live in outside of Israel. That's about as close to old Henry Fords declaring jews are 'a nation within a nation where ever they live' as you can get. Abrams is a true blue zionista neo and racist. For what it's worth I don't think Obama is going to back down. The thing in doubt is will he lighten up over 'small 'concessions that Israel makes or not. I would guess he is well aquainted with the Israeli bait and switch game and I would rate his dedication to his bottom line as similar to a heating seeking missle….BUT….he has an Israeli dem congress to contend with who will try to sabotage him on Israel and hold his other programs hostage as a weapon.
"says Obama administration 'is wrong' to deny existence of understanding between Sharon, Bush on natural growth in settlements.." there was an understanding between Bush and Sharon that war on Iraq would bring a flowering of democracy to the Middle East and lift the Palestinian monkey off Israel's back. That didn't work out as planned and is directly linked to the settlements issue today.
Damn, American has succinctly spelled it out: " I would guess he is well aquainted with the Israeli bait and switch game and I would rate his dedication to his bottom line as similar to a heating seeking missle….BUT….he has an Israeli dem congress to contend with who will try to sabotage him on Israel and hold his other programs hostage as a weapon." This is Obama's problem in a nutshell. We can assume he wants a second term, so what will he do? So far, he has not supported Chas Freeman; he was mum on Gaza massacre; he put Dennis Ross at his side, and he put his zionist gate keeper there too. OTH he spoke out in his Cairo speech against settlements, though merely talking about a freeze, which has led to Israel saying, How long a Freeze? As if the settlements were not core in the first place…. Sorry, I can't read Obama to tell you what he will do. So far, with his rubber-stamping of Wall Street, putting the same old roosters in charge of the hen house, I have a sinking feeling.
Any kind of message like this just proves what the bad guys in Iran have been saying to their people for years. It makes it easier for them to hurt the people Obama is trying to help. Neocons such as Paul Wolfowitz who have been calling for more aggressive and public support of the Iranian opposition KNOW this is true. The reason they call for it anyway is because they WANT "the people Obama is trying to help" to lose. They WANT Ahmadinejad and his ilk to stay in power, because that would perpetuate the conflict. Neocons and colonial Zionists view the possibility of a detente between America and a more liberal Iranian government with horror: it would badly constrains Israel's freedom to continue creeping ethnic cleansing and colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It sounds like Mr. Weissman may be cut from a different cloth.
RE: "Obama has to stand tough on the settlement expansions if he hopes to not squander the tentative gains of the last few weeks" *** TELL OBAMA "FREEZE MEANS FREEZE" *** FROM J STREET: Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of a full settlement freeze, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said…that President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." This is exactly the sort of leadership we need from the President and Secretary of State if we are going to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – the only way to truly secure Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland. Please send the President a message telling him you support his "Freeze means Freeze" approach to Israeli settlements. * TO SEND MESSAGE - http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/2747/t/3251/pet...
It is not just individual comments that come and go, the whole comment thread on the Gwyneth, Kate story is gone. There were 20 or so comments on the thread when I posted a droll piece about Chas Freeman that I labored over for half an hour. Gone, all gone… weep. Good thing I cross-posted it here, http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/flying-spa...
Ah, yes. Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. This is from Wikipedia: El Salvador In early 1982, when reports of the El Mozote massacre of civilians by the military in El Salvador began appearing in U.S. media, Abrams told a Senate committee that the reports of hundreds of deaths at El Mozote "were not credible," and that "it appears to be an incident that is at least being significantly misused, at the very best, by the guerrillas."[9] The massacre had come at a time when the Reagan administration was attempting to bolster the human rights image of the Salvadoran military. Abrams implied that reports of a massacre were simply FMLN propaganda and denounced US investigative reports of the massacre as misleading. In March 1993, the Salvadoran Truth Commission reported that 5000 civilians were "deliberately and systematically" executed in El Mozote in December 1981 by forces affiliated with the Salvadoran state.[10] Also in 1993, documentation emerged suggesting that some Reagan administration officials could have known about El Mozote and other human rights violations from the beginning.[11] However, in July 1993, an investigation commissioned by Clinton Secretary of State Warren Christopher into the State department's "activities and conduct" with regard to human rights in El Salvador during the Reagan years found that, despite the department's mistakes handling El Mozote, its personnel "performed creditably and occasionally with personal bravery in advancing human rights in El Salvador".[12] Abrams himself claimed that Washington's policy in El Salvador was a "fabulous achievement."[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams
"the release of Hamas prisoners (including its Parliamentarians) by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel" The release of the prisoner wasn't done because they wanted to reconcile with Hamas or anything, and Israel wasn't throwing a bone for the Palestinians for them to release their soldier, the only reason he was released is because after Israel kidnapped him (that's what it is, kidnapping), they had a show trial in which they convicted of him of being a member of an illegal organization and sent him to jail for three years. His sentence was over and he was released, as simple as that. It wasn't some act of generosity or something. And I disagree with this article on another issue, saying Obama's speech affected the facts on the ground shows great ignorance of what is actually going on. The expansion of the settlements, they main issue that Obama is talking about, did not slow down one bit, on the contrary, from what I can see, it appears to me that Israel is making a bigger effort to swallow all of Jerusalem, and with the continuing expansion of the west bank settlements. Al Jazeera English is making a report on the issue of Jerusalem entitled "Land Grab". I advise you to watch it, it's very informative even if you know about the situation.
There is a concensus to pursue peace, it has been since the last thirty years, it's called UN resolution 242. A concensus that the international community accepts, that the PLO accepted, that Hamas currently accepts. Israel has to stop the occupation of palestinian land, get out of the settlements, accept a divided Jerusalem, and accept the right of return. I know there are some points that are left for negotiation but if Israel wants peace it needs to accept that solution.
If this was "done as [part of?] some kind of Israel/DC [Iranian] bargain" it would have had to involve Moosavi who was a major player in the Iran/Contra scandal…
Can you expand on that story? Are you saying that Moussavi was/is still a major player, a friend of Israel and the West, was he actually bosom buddies with this Abrams chap? Or was he, like so many others in the region just an everyday business thug in an lucrative arms deal? From where I'm standing there are no good guys in this battle. Sharon, Netanyahu and Lieberman are just different forms of thugs than Moussavi, Rafsanjani, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. Also, there's a story being floated around [mostly in the UK press] that Khamenei is not well, and that he was pushing for his son to succeed him [his son being well connected to Ahmadinejad, and just as authoritarian]. Apparently this wasn't going down too well with the reformist and some others. Makes me wonder what offshore dealings Khamenei son has, and with whom — maybe China, or Russia? I'm surprised this succession theory hasn't been explored more over here — or is our MIC press only interested in presenting stories/excuses for regime change on their terms? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/mojta...
G8 calls for settlement freeze: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3737443...