Trending Topics:

Pro-Israel camp blames John Kerry for breakdown of peace talks

on 40 Comments
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  listens as US Secretary of State John Kerry makes a statement to the press before a meeting at the Prime Minister's Office on January 2, 2014 in Jerusalem. (Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu listens as US Secretary of State John Kerry makes a statement to the press before a meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office on January 2, 2014 in Jerusalem. (Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

Who is to blame for the breakdown of the peace talks? Last week US State Department envoy Martin Indyk did the unpardonable, and called out Israel’s settlement program for the failure: “rampant settlement activity – especially in the midst of negotiations – doesn’t just undermine Palestinian trust in the purpose of the negotiations; it can undermine Israel’s Jewish future.”

Now pro-Israel voices are trying to massage Indyk’s statements away, by faulting Indyk, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Secretary of State John Kerry too.

The Forward has a good piece up by Nathan Guttman that describes Indyk’s long history of devotion to Israel then conveys criticism of him for his untoward comments at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Indyk’s prepared remarks were “detailed, impassioned and painstakingly evenhanded,” wrote Robert Satloff, the institute’s executive director in a later analysis of the speech. But in his off-the-cuff remarks afterward, Satloff said, “the brunt of criticism fell on the architects of Israeli settlement activity.”

[Dennis] Ross, who has been in Indyk’s shoes himself many times in the past, said that Indyk had “explained away” Abbas’ role in “shutting down” the talks by highlighting the role of Israel’s settlements in leading Abbas to withdraw.

Ross parted ways with Indyk on this. “I would stress the shutting down” by Abbas, Ross said.

Satloff puts the onus on Abbas in his own piece about the crisis at the Washington Institute:

Lost in the heavy focus on settlement activity — including the media stir it caused abroad — was important news Indyk revealed about the recent diplomacy, especially the fact that U.S. negotiators believed they may have had sufficient compromises from Israel to reach a breakthrough agreement, but Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas refused to even respond to American proposals when he came to Washington to meet with President Obama in mid-March.

Satloff also blames– John Kerry:

Of course, it may be too much to have expected Indyk to offer any mea culpas on behalf of his boss, Secretary Kerry. But details of such errors are already beginning to emerge. Earlier in the Weinberg Conference, for example, Israeli peace negotiator Michael Herzog revealed that Kerry had reached inconsistent understandings with each side on how to extend negotiations — including on the fourth tranche of prisoner releases — and thereby contributed to the delay in that process.

But Satloff acknowledges there is a crisis. And what is the answer? Satloff notes what Kerry himself has hinted he will do: state the terms of a resolution and then walk away. But that’s not wise, Satloff says. Israel would get blamed:

In the current situation, there is intense speculation as to Secretary Kerry’s next step. On the one hand, he could choose from variations on the “James Baker option”: endorse the focus on settlement activity as the principal, though not sole, reason for the breakdown in diplomacy, announce some version of the U.S. ideas sufficient for Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and invite the parties to call him whenever they have the “urgency” (to use Indyk’s term) to make the compromises needed for breakthrough. This would have the effect, if not the intent, of heaping the lion’s share of blame on Israel and effectively freeing Palestinians from responsibility for their actions (and inaction) in the process. While this type of policy may be alluring to some, it has the seeds of many future policy headaches, such as feeding international condemnation of Israel that the United States would have to work to counteract; feeding Israel’s sense of abandonment at a critical moment in the Iran nuclear negotiations; and feeding a potent mix of defiance and irresponsibility among Palestinians that might end with a much worse political configuration in Ramallah.

Alternatively, Kerry has a range of options to keep the United States — and him personally — engaged in peacemaking, though perhaps in a different format. This includes taking active steps with the parties to ensure the sustainability of their security cooperation; proposing unilateral steps each could take that might reshuffle the political situation in a way that makes formal negotiations more likely to succeed; coordinating with both sides to prevent a spiral of negative unilateral steps that would make a return to diplomacy more difficult

That’s conflict management. Occupation and checkpoints and no rights for Palestinians, forever, and no intifada either. The Palestinians in two prisons.

Back at the Forward, Nathan Guttman helpfully traces Indyk’s long history as an Israel supporter.

This 35-year record began at the heart of the pro-Israel establishment in Washington. Steve Rosen, a former senior official with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful Washington lobby, had mentored Indyk at the Australian National University, and then invited him to move to Washington and run the lobby’s regular publication, Near East Report. Shortly after, Rosen recommended Indyk as the first director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank founded by AIPAC supporters.

“This is a guy who had read every book ever published with the word ‘Israel’ in its title,” Rosen said of his protégé. Indyk, he noted, had both exceptional analytical capabilities, and “great diplomatic skills.”

These same skills impressed Bill Clinton when Indyk was among those who briefed him on Israel in the early stages of his 1992 presidential campaign. This led eventually to Clinton choosing the young analyst as his chief Middle East adviser upon taking office.

Yes, the Israel lobbyist was brought into the Clinton camp in 1992, as Clinton was raising a lot of pro-Israel money, and Clinton ran to the right of Bush on settlements, and unseated the incumbent. Guttman says that Indyk’s lack of protocol in the last week reflects the fact that he’s a blunt Australian.

Update: Elliott Abrams also blames Kerry and Indyk and Obama. “Martin’s Myths,” at the Weekly Standard, castigates Indyk’s

failure to cast any blame on the third side of the triangle: the United States, or more precisely Kerry and Indyk himself. Blaming his boss, and his boss’s boss, President Obama, was more than could legitimately have been expected from Indyk, but a wee bit of introspection was not. Historians will not have to be consulted decades from now to analyze the manifold errors in Obama administration handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..

Jeffrey Goldberg has also chimed in. The lobby water-carrier is careful to blame Abbas.

This week, perhaps in reaction to the reaction to [Nahum] Barnea’s article [in which American officials fingered Israeli settlements], American officials I spoke to were careful to apportion blame in a way that was slightly more evenhanded (to borrow a loaded term from the annals of American peacemaking). There is no doubt that the underlying message is the same: The Netanyahu government’s settlement program, in the officials’ view, is the original sin committed in the nine-month process (the original sin of the Middle East conflict is located elsewhere). But officials I spoke to said that they are peeved — a word one of them actually used — at Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for, in essence, checking out of the peace process as early as February.

Also note the transformation of the word “evenhanded.” As Goldberg indicates, it used to be that no one wanted to be caught dead being evenhanded. That was like being an Arabist, it suggested you were too interested in Palestinian grievances. The landscape is shifting.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

40 Responses

  1. Kay24 on May 14, 2014, 10:50 am

    Israel can desperately try to find a scape goat, but the facts are:

    John Kerry has blamed Israel’s refusal to release prisoners AND the announcing of more illegal settlements.
    Martin Indyk has blamed Israel for the building of illegal settlements as reason for peace talks failing.
    Tzipi Livni has also blamed the illegal settlements for the failure.

    Israel may try to re-write facts and put their usual (dishonest) spin on this, but the truth is out, and it makes Israel look more and more like the endless occupier, who keeps making lame excuses to not give their victims, their freedom, and rights.
    This time it will not work.

  2. American on May 14, 2014, 11:25 am

    Ho hum…could care less what the US zios say.
    This circus will go on until the zionist and Israel ruin themselves..which they will.
    I can almost smell I-First congressperps careers going up in flames with them now……faster please Israel.

  3. talknic on May 14, 2014, 12:05 pm

    I do believe it’s starting to unravel.

    The bottom line is:
    Palestine asks for its legal rights according to the Laws and UN charter Israel agreed to but has failed to uphold.
    Israel’s demands on the other hand have absolutely no legal basis what so ever and due to the extent of 66 years creating illegal facts on the ground it cannot afford the astronomical costs involved in rightfully compensating the Palestinians or the civil war that will surely ensue if it tried to relocate hundreds of thousands of disillusioned and very angry Israeli citizens back to Israeli territory.

    • W.Jones on May 14, 2014, 2:15 pm

      I don’t see it as unraveling, only just a reminder of what is wrong and worsening.

      They are looking to install a de facto segregationist system across the land, which they have basically done, and much of the Right Wing wants to solve the problem through deportation. Meanwhile, what is the power to intervene? The UN? It’s only as good as its members, and the US has veto power in it, and the State’s supporters have veto power in the US.

      Of course, it would be nice if you contradicted me.

      • talknic on May 14, 2014, 4:31 pm

        @ W.Jones We are by your reply already contradictory, no?

        The US veto is only as good as Zionist lobby and the internet will eventually be its demise.

        We see it here daily when the ziocaine addled try their crappolla only to be shot down by logic and fact, time and time again.

        Folk can now read for themselves first hand verbatim statements on the UN record showing the duplicity of the Jewish agency

        They can read first hand the hundreds of UNSC resolutions against the State of Israel and understand why the UN is not in fact biased against Israel

        They can be shown the long string of broken Israeli promises, first hand accounts of who started which wars and who the UNSC resolutions condemn and why

        They can read for themselves what the Zionist propagandists omit from the Lon Mandate (Article 7), what they omit from the Hamas Charter (Article 31) etc etc etc

        They can read what the BDS movement actually say.
        They can read reports of extremist Jews painting swastikas on their own doors and edifices and make false claims of antisemitism to purposefully incite hatred
        They can watch videos of IDF brutality against children, of armed settlers shooting at unarmed Palestinians while the IDF watch
        They can cross reference the blatant lies of Howard Grief, Dershowitz, Netanyahu and Peres et al

        “what is the power to intervene? “

        As always people who honestly care, who won’t shut up, who won’t dumb down, who won’t be intimidated. Lies have holes thru which the truth shines, one only needs to blow the bulldust away

      • W.Jones on May 14, 2014, 9:32 pm

        Yes, fortunately now the truth is at their fingertips on the web. But the keyword is “can”:

        Folk can now read for themselves first hand verbatim statements on the UN record showing the duplicity of the Jewish agency

        I was unaware of the situation myself until I randomly heard a charity worker give an hour long talk that laid it out some years ago. I think it was Mooser who asked me some time ago whether my religion can cure his eczema. I don’t know about religion, but on the web you can learn about soaking in sea salt without side effects and yet people pay hundreds of dollars for doctor visits and damaging steroid creams.

        That’s perhaps a humorous (although true) case in point, but decades after we have the internet, the asymetrical imbalance, conflict, and inequality in the Holy Land remains, although you are right that the web is a potential weak point for its continuation.

        As always people who honestly care, who won’t shut up, who won’t dumb down, who won’t be intimidated. Lies have holes thru which the truth shines, one only needs to blow the bulldust away

        They have the occasional annoyance of someone like Abileah who interrupts the ovations and gets beat up, or having to misannounce a Democratic Convention vote. This reflects how the forum for public “discussion” on the issue is pretty asymmetrical too, unfortunately

  4. Citizen on May 14, 2014, 12:47 pm

    Oh hum, more of the same.
    So here I report on the ADL’s latest world-wide poll on “anti-semitism.” Note that the number one “anti-semitic” people reside as non-Jews in Gaza and the West Bank:

    As with previous public opinion research conducted by ADL in the United States, survey respondents who said at least 6 out of the 11 statements are “probably true” are considered to harbor anti-Semitic attitudes. The Index Score for each country represents the percentage of adults in that specific country who answered “probably true” to a majority of the anti-Semitic stereotypes tested.The following are the eleven statements that constitute theADL GLOBAL 100 anti-Semitism index:

    Jews are more loyal to Israel than to [this country/the countries they live in]*
    Jews have too much power in international financial markets
    Jews have too much control over global affairs
    Jews think they are better than other people
    Jews have too much control over the global media
    Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars
    Jews have too much power in the business world
    Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind
    People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave
    Jews have too much control over the United States government
    Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust

    Irael is on the NSA’s list of Third-Party Approved SIGINT Partners. Also on list: Jordan, Turkey, UAE, Pakistan, Algeria, Austria, Croatia, Romania, Czech Republic, Macedonia.

    Add Belgium, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Singapore

    A summary of the results by region, etc:

    I ask you, Mondoweissers, what do you think of this ADL index claiming to determine whether on not anybody is “anti-semitic”?

    Should only Jews do “Jewish accounting” or can Gentiles do it to0? We are talking here about what the ADL’s index considers as anti-semitic perception. What if we applied a similar array of poll index questions to determine, world-wide, the perception regarding stereotypes about Americans, for example? I guess, I’m asking,
    what are the origins of stereotypes of any sort? Why are stereotypes based on opinion of probabilities, not worthy or worthy of further consideration? Are they pure figments of the imagination? Is there some reason to stereotypes about anything? The American political debate is chock full of stereotypes from the two main political parties. What would a domestic poll on anti-Americanism reveal? And a global one?

    • jenin on May 14, 2014, 6:48 pm

      Funny, I saw the nyt had an article today about an iPhone app that can show lost villages from the nakba and was encouraged, esp as the article did go a bit into what the nakba was. and then I saw this article. That ruined any sense of hope I had. It seems to me a desperate attempt to counter all the bad publicity Israel has been getting… Like saying, see, but we are necessary to save the Jews! Jews need Israel! I did not get a chance to look in depth, but first I noticed the claim in the article that according to the study 50% of adults have never heard of the holocaust is not compared to anything else… Ie what percentage of world adults haven’t heard of the Cold War? Know who the us president is? Maybe there are just a lot more people that know a lot less than those of us who grow up in developed countries assume. Further, what about comparing the answers to questions about ‘antisemitism’ with those indications islamophobia? How did they ask the questions? Etc etc. and maybe it’s unfair, but I’m pretty suspicious of any study conducted by the completely hypocritical and immoral adl

    • Nevada Ned on May 14, 2014, 8:42 pm

      Back in 2008, the ADL ran a similar survey, in which respondants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement:

      “The movies and television industries are pretty much run by Jews”

      The ADL deplored that 22% of Americans agreed.

      Joel Klein, then a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, under the headline

      “Who runs Hollywood? C=mon.”

      Klein continued:

      I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

      Joel Klein presented plenty of facts to support his case.

    • W.Jones on May 14, 2014, 10:20 pm

      The problem I see with the survey is because the questions are generalizations. You cannot really answer “Yes” or “No” to them.
      It is like asking “Do Red Heads like red-colored ice cream?” Well, some red heads do, so grammatically does that mean you should answer yes?
      In fact, if people answer “No”, then it means they are overgeneralizing that Red Heads don’t like ice cream! So there is no possible “right” answer to the poll.

      • Woody Tanaka on May 15, 2014, 10:32 am

        “The problem I see with the survey is because the questions are generalizations. ”

        Yes, this survey is an abomination. The ADL should frankly be ashamed of itself for spewing this nonsense. (The worst part is that antisemitism rates may be as high as they suggest, but you would never know it from this survey. It is actually worse than nothing in that regard.)

        First, because, as you say, the questions are generalizaitons which gramatically can prompt false answers.

        Second, because “antisemitic” is concluded if one answers “probably yes” to a number of these statement where the inclusion of “probably” is inherently a flawed way of measuring anything, because it is wholly subjective.

        And third, because nowhere does it measure whether the respondent belives that the “probably yeses” are actually bad or negative things.

        Let’s look at each one and see where answers which do not objectively indicate antisemitism are counted as such in this survey:

        1 Jews are more loyal to Israel than to [this country/the countries they live in]*

        If you believe that it is a good, worthy trait for someone to be more loyal to (in order) their family, tribe, nation or co-religionists then state (which is in no way a hateful heirarchy), you might say “probably yes” to this question out of respect for what you perceive as Jews having the proper outlook on life. Should that be considered antisemtic? No, but here it would.

        2 Jews have too much power in international financial markets

        And without defining “too much power,” the question could be read as someone being asked if there are more Jews in powerful position in internatinal finance than would be expected given their numbers. And a person could truthfully say, “Probably yes. Jews probably have too much power, given their numbers, because they have more powerful people in this area than should be expected per capita. And good for them for their achievement. They should be proud of themselves for this accomplishment.”

        Again, it could be answered in a way that is totally non-antisemitic but considered as such.

        3 Jews have too much control over global affairs

        Again, if you don’t define “too much” and don’t require the person to express whether it is a bad thing, then a totally non-antisemitic answer can be considered one.

        4 Jews think they are better than other people

        The answer: “Probably yes, because they are human beings, and all human beings think they are better than other people, because that’s an unfortunate part of human nature. It’s not blameworthy, just the operation of human ego, the same as every person in the world.” Again, a non-antisemitic answer that is being treated as one.

        5 Jews have too much control over the global media

        What do you mean, “too much”?? (See, 2 and 3 above)

        6 Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars

        This is probably the only statement in this survey that could indicate an antisemitic attitude with any degree of assurance.

        7 Jews have too much power in the business world

        Again, “too much” is too undefined to conclude anything.

        8 Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind

        And if one is of the opinion that they should take care of themselves first and let everyone else take care of their own, they may answer this “probably yes” but not believe it is a negative trait. It may be a misguided response, but not necessarily antisemitic. (Although this is closer to a properly framed question.)

        9 People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave

        And, yet again, one could answer this “probably yes” after concluding that old-style antisemitism — hating Jews as Jews — is thankfully a thing of the past, and that if someone hates a Jew it probably based on something the person, who happens to be Jewish did. (Because, again, the old grammar problem. The question doesn’t make it clear whether the question is referring to a person hating all Jews or simple the plural of a person who happen to hate a person who is Jewish.)

        More broadly, a person could give the entirely non-antisemitic answer that “Yes, people probably do hate the Jews ‘because of the way Jews behave’ and this is a regrettable, deplorable attitude that these people have because either they don’t see that they are using ‘the behavior’ as an excuse or, (if the behaviors that are being objected to are, for example, religious rituals,) they are not not sufficiently appreciative of the diversity of human culture and should learn to accept the variety of human experiences.” Again, the question could be answered “probably yes” but harbor no antisemitic intent whatsoever.

        10 Jews have too much control over the United States government

        Again, without defining “too much” or noting whether that is seen as a negative thing, objectively non-antisemitic responses could be considered as antisemitic.

        11 Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust

        This is two fold. First is the repeated “too much” problem.

        Second, is the notion that it is antisemitic to believe that disagreeing with the degree of attention the Holocaust garners is a sign of antisemitism. I recall the discussion by an Israeli in the film Defamation, in which he essentially said that Jewish Israelis spend too much of their focus on the Holocaust and need to move on in order for them and their children to grow and prosper. You can disagree with the idea all you want, but to call it “antisemitic” is insane. Yet, that same reasoning would garner a tally in the “antisemitic” column in this survey.

        So, out of 11 statements, one is reasonable indicative of an antisemitic attitude, one is pretty good but flawed, and 9 are so poorly worded, and seek such a poorly worded response that non-anti-semitic responses are counted as antisemitic. This survey can tell us nothing.

        I understand why the ADL would put out such a flawed survey, after all, when antisemitism dies, so does their reason for being, so they have no incentive to measure antisemitism accurately, but they should be ashamed of themselves.

      • Citizen on May 15, 2014, 10:33 am

        The latest poll, as I say above, asked in terms of the listed statements about Jews, whether or not they were probably true.

  5. Donald on May 14, 2014, 1:07 pm

    “Also note the transformation of the word “evenhanded.” As Goldberg indicates, it used to be that no one wanted to be caught dead being evenhanded. That was like being an Arabist, it suggested you were too interested in Palestinian grievances. The landscape is shifting.”

    There’s a rule here that I haven’t figured out how to phrase in a pithy way, but it goes like this. If the Israelis are 95 percent to blame, then in the US the blame is split evenly. If the Israelis are 80 percent to blame, then it’s all the fault of the Palestinians.

    The Israeli right is getting too openly arrogant for the US to pretend it’s all the fault of Abbas that the talks failed. So that’s why the talk of evenhandedness. Get someone like Livni in there and the US government and also the mainstream press in the US would side with her 100 percent. The Palestinians would be offered something inadequate, it would be called “generous” and they would be told to accept it or else.

  6. amigo on May 14, 2014, 1:10 pm

    Rest assured the goi will increase it,s violence against Palestinians in a desperate attempt to regain their so called Victim status and to forestall the debate about who was at fault for the breakdown of the so called peace talks.One would have to be blind not to see who is responsible.

    Kate will be busy counting dead young Palestinians with a few dozen children abused to further enrage Palestinians.Hold fast and do not react as the zios would wish.They are in a corner which has taken the lives of so many brave Palestinians.Do not let the zionist criminal state win.

  7. Krauss on May 14, 2014, 1:31 pm

    The hysteria is getting worse.

    Now George Clooney’s new fiance is apparently worthy of 3 pages(!) of condemnation, because Clooney is an influential Hollywood liberal and he could be influenced by his new Arab (druze) girlfriend! She’s too pro-Palestinian!


  8. seafoid on May 14, 2014, 1:55 pm

    Amazing to see the change since the Palestine papers where the Israelis told the Palestinians what to do and rights were nowhere.

    I wonder how the big goy Multinationals see Israel now.

    There was a feature on the sale of Israeli drones to the Swiss army on Swiss TV the other night and the issue of Israeli product testing in Gaza got a lot of attention.

    • RoHa on May 14, 2014, 8:06 pm

      “There was a feature on the sale of Israeli drones to the Swiss army ”

      Multi-purpose drones, complete with bottle opener, tiny scissors, and thing for taking stones out of horses’ hooves, I presume.

  9. weiss on May 14, 2014, 2:09 pm

    Most adults accept responsibility when they make mistakes…

    That being said, as a Jew myself, I find it quite disturbing that Israeli policy makers and staunch supporters of the Status-Quo seem to lack the courage to admit even the slightest mistakes or bad policy decisions.

    Placing the blame on a 3rd party (Kerry) is indicative of this attitude.

    It is this arrogance, that is turning the world’s eyes towards Israel’s behavior, while breeding more anti-Semites than the even worst haters….

    So who are the real enemies of Israel ???

    • Kay24 on May 14, 2014, 4:53 pm

      You are right. It also reflects poorly on Kerry and the US, after this expensive effort to bring peace for Israel (and the Palestinians of course), shuttling back and forth, and most probably promises that would be costly to the American tax payers, I would have expected the US and Kerry to tell Israel to go jump in the Dead sea, and wash our hands off the ungrateful parasite….but then with Israel it never turns out like that. The US has been abused, and insulted, by Israel far too many times, but the unwavering love continues.

      • Shingo on May 14, 2014, 7:12 pm

        Very good point Kay. And that does not just apply to America.

        While it comes as no surprise that political leaders like Kerry and Obama keep taking the abuse on the chin and offering the other cheek, it’s fascinating to watch how ardent Israeli supporters who are trying to reach a solution react to the right wing turning on them.

        Dershowitz has been booed in public a number of times and remains unphased.

        But I wondered how Indyk will react to being attacked not only by the right, but even his own peers. Will he begin to question the whole Zionist ideology or just walk away with his tail between his legs and sit quietly in the corner?

      • Kay24 on May 15, 2014, 10:51 am

        I agree Shingo, here is another example of kissing up, molly coddling, and doing major damage control:
        “U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said on Thursday he heard the reports about Israeli spying on the U.S. and said he was unaware of evidence supporting such claims.

        Asked during a press conference in Tel Aviv about a Newsweek magazine story quoting unnamed U.S. officials as saying Israel was conducting major spying operations against the United States, Hagel said: “I have heard of that report. I’m not aware of any facts that would substantiate the report.”

        Perhaps he is ignorant about Pollard, perhaps he did not get briefed by our officials like our congressional members did. I have never seen such blindness, when it comes to Israel, and shameless groveling when the truth is spoken, and Israel shows it’s anger at us.

      • Citizen on May 15, 2014, 11:35 am

        Seems Hagel learned his lesson from the ordeal that SNL spoofed, but never aired to the public. Sad. This would happen to a once so very tested and patriotic American soldier. I hope he enjoys his new, very prestigious and lucrative career. I bet at night he gets drunk, every night. Bought off by AIPAC and his ambition.

  10. HarryLaw on May 14, 2014, 2:21 pm

    I agree with those who accuse Indyk, Kerry and Abbas for the failure of the talks, all three or maybe just Kerry and Abbas believe the end result of the talks would be a sovereign Palestinian state on territory, less roughly 8 to 10%?? for the major Israeli settlements, with a corresponding land swap etc etc, Nothing could be further from the truth, what the Israelis have in mind is a series of bantustans surrounded by Israeli settlements with NO SOVEREIGNTY, how could Netanyahu concede sovereignty to another state, when he claims sovereignty over the whole of the “Land of Israel”, including Judea and Samaria, that’s what Zionism is all about, Netanyahu of all people will not concede, nor will he wreck his government by even going part of the way, of course he wants to continue talking, but that is only a tactic to enable more settlements and to keep the International community off his back. Only severe pressure from the US and International community will change their calculations, even with them I have my doubts.

    • Citizen on May 15, 2014, 12:01 pm

      Abbas agreed to give Israel most of the settlements it made. No electable or current Israeli PM can stop the Israeli settlements. The die has long been cast. Everybody knows it with any influence except the US government. The US has a history going back to Truman and Israel’s shoddy acceptance into the UN, a history of putting its power behind the Zionists and their campaign money and behind Zionist power in the US main media. I conclude that the US is being dragged to its own doom, by the Zionist fifth column in the USA. Most Americans won’t wake up until it’s too late. Even Hagel is now part of this problem,having been broken at his vetting as SNL satirized, and Obama was broken after his Cairo speech.

  11. seafoid on May 14, 2014, 3:38 pm

    It depends on what the point of the peace talks was. If they were the result in a Palestinian state the bots are responsible. If not, take your pick.

    The notion that Israel wants peace is deluded and this should be the departure point for whatever comes next.

  12. ritzl on May 14, 2014, 4:19 pm

    Satloff: “…and feeding a potent mix of defiance and irresponsibility among Palestinians…”

    It buggers the mind how these people can even contemplate, let alone say stuff like this with a straight face. Yes, how DARE those occupied for going on 70 years show DEFIANCE! They’re supposed to be domesticated by now.

    Master of the Universe arrogant, batshit crazy and completely divorced from pretty much everyone’s definition of reality. That statement sums up the distillation, internalization, and regurgitation of Israeli bad faith. Game over. Lots of maimed/dead people to follow. The Israeli ptb, and syco[phant]s, are simply not normal people and will never take counsel or act in predictable/rational ways, even when their own professed self-interest is at stake.

    But then, Israel’s professed self-interest is a reality question as well – decades of manufactured reality.

    I just hope enough people wake up to that fact soon enough so that they don’t take the rest of us down with them.

    And the last paragraph in the article is a gem.

    • Citizen on May 15, 2014, 12:16 pm

      @ ritzl

      Pretty hard to be normal people if you think there’s a goy around every corner, just waiting to attack you at first good opportunity. Yes, simply because you are a jew. That’s the mindset. The proof it’s not paranoia is the Shoah. Don’t you remember, the German jews were 110% German, and look what happened to them? This POV will dictate what will happen in the future. It’s a set-up for WW3. It’s just a question of when. And, yes, WW3 will include nukes. I’m too old to worry about it. But it’s coming.

  13. Shingo on May 14, 2014, 5:21 pm

    What a sordid cast of characters! Abrams, Rosen – two criminals . Dennis “Israel’s lawyer” Ross. You can see that they are trying to revive and impose the Camp David narrative again, but this time no one is buying it. Ross’s weaker words suggests not even he believes it.

    Goldberg’s reference to unnamed officials is pathetic and wreaks of a half hearted defense .

    As for Guttman accusing Indyk of being abrasive in the last few weeks , he clearly had no problem with Indyk’s abrasive was all these years when directed at Arafat etc.

    Game over.

    • ritzl on May 14, 2014, 6:29 pm

      Re: Indyk… History begins yesterday. Always has in Israel & Co. Phil’s observation on the amazing, current adopted use of the formerly heretical “evenhanded” by Israel sycophants really drives that home.

      I wonder if this isn’t getting into the “Win” part of that Gandhi quote:

      “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

      The embrace of the opposite meaning doesn’t seem to be ignoring, ridiculing, or fighting. I hope it’s game over. This phase anyway.

      • W.Jones on May 14, 2014, 10:08 pm


        J Street still seems pretty intent on the “Two State Solution” as “the answer”. The Israeli proposal always was for the Pal “state” in Area C plus maybe another “Area” to get no army, for the occupation to de facto continue, and for the main settlement(s) to stay, etc.

        I think it’s harder for J Street to advocate for a 2SS when it becomes so clear that the Pal. “state” would be the equivalent of sliced up Area C + the occupation. But I don’t see why that would stop it, since that has been the Israeli proposal and Netanyahu’s proclaimed “reality” all along, do you?

        J Street and the US govn’t have been OK with a sliced up, occupied, limited Pal. State all along with no army, and assuming that the Israeli settlements will keep out of most of Area C, what makes you hopeful that the fact that the peace (or normalization?) talks did not succeed this time mean that J Street and the US will suddenly decide to give up their goal for 2SS peace talks leading to an occupied Pal. “state”?

      • ritzl on May 15, 2014, 10:08 am

        @W. Jones- I don’t think “game over” means that Israel and its supporters will ever stop trying to assert their alternate reality. They have too much invested in it and too much inertia from past “success” to give up. Rote behavior.

        I think it does mean that those politically-engineered assertions will increasingly fall on deaf ears as Israel’s real purpose/intent (which you lay out) becomes unambiguous (through calm-assertive education) and actionable, both publicly and privately. IOW recognized as the Apartheid/Hafrada it is, in spite of the ongoing assertions/protestations to the contrary.

        Maybe it’s a bit early yet, but I believe that the positions you describe are vestigial and therefore irrelevant to future events and policy. As are the people and orgs that advance them. The world has passed them by…

        Is that hopeful? :)

        PS. Obviously anyone can shoehorn anything into anything given enough force and a willingness to lose a little around the edges, so the assertions still have force, imho. But the underlying movement is away from them. FWIW.

      • W.Jones on May 15, 2014, 9:24 pm

        It sounds like your first two and final paragraphs match what is happening.

        The position I describe is the “mainstream” Liberal Zionist position, which includes Finkelstein, J Street, Friedman, Rosenberg, and Chomsky, but many others. Since they will continue to influence on policy, perhaps their position is not really irrelevant? You yourself said that you do not expect them to stop asserting their proposed reality. If their proposal is vestigial, then this at least describes the very long term.

        As to your last paragraph, it has truth in that liberal Zionists, like Ben Gurion, planned to have two functioning states, where the native Christians and Muslims would live in the inland one. Due to settlement growth and the entrenchment of military occupation, this vision of two real states is no longer a very realistic one. So in that sense you are correct.

        The L.Z.’s Two State Solution would require a huge reversal in the balance of forces, one which many L.Z.s are not really committed to imposing, based on the emphasis they put on being pro-Israeli.

  14. James Canning on May 14, 2014, 7:23 pm

    Dennis Ross should demand full credit for helping Israel to continue its illegal colonisation programme in the West Bank, and thereby wrecking the negotiations.

  15. on May 14, 2014, 9:33 pm

    Article in the Guardian tonight entitled “Kerry wasn’t wrong: Israel’s future is beginning to look a lot like apartheid” which is more damning of Israel than anything I ever read in Mondoweiss. It is amazing that a the truth can be so effectively suppressed all over the world.

  16. wondering jew on May 15, 2014, 1:52 am

    I am not sure what role the blame game will play in all this. I suppose it will depend on the next events in history. In the aftermath of Camp David 2000 came the intifada and with it the blame that Arafat chose violence rather than peace. I suppose that if another intifada erupts a similar dynamic would be created if the blame had already been left on the Palestinian doorstep. I think at this point violence would not be a wise Palestinian move, it would detract and distract from their nonviolent protests and applications to the UN et al. If the US Congress or president seeks to punish Palestine and the PA then it would be useful if someone could say, “but it’s not their fault, the Israelis torpedoed the peace process, the Palestinians had no choice but to go to the UN”. But I would have to assume that the Congress will make its own decisions re:consequences and those will not be necessarily guided by the voices quoted here who either blame Israel or blame both sides.

    If “Israel is to blame” or “Abbas is to blame” or “both sides are to blame” had immediately apparent consequences, then I would get exercised over the analysis of blame. But the path of the PA and the reaction of Congress to the path of the PA is not at all clear and so the apportionment of blame is something without immediately apparent consequence.

    • Shingo on May 15, 2014, 1:55 am

      In the aftermath of Camp David 2000 came the intifada and with it the blame that Arafat chose violence rather than peace

      Why do you even other posting this BS Yonah, when you know it’s not true.

      In the aftermath of Camp David 2000 came Taba 2001, at which point Barak walked out.

    • Cliff on May 15, 2014, 8:30 am

      Nice whataboutery word salad, wondering jew.

      The blame is not ambiguous. Israel does not want a 2ss.

      They are doing the same thing they’ve always done – run out the clock, build settlements, cry Holocaust/antisemitism/etc.

      And you cultists respond accordingly with diversion.

  17. traintosiberia on May 15, 2014, 8:25 am

    Ross revises facts and hides the facts as he moves from one Israeli centric position to another Isareli centric position.

    • James Canning on May 15, 2014, 7:18 pm

      Dennis Ross in effect is doing the bidding of some very rich and powerful Americans.

Leave a Reply