The unanimous response to the Kerry proposal by the members of the Israeli cabinet on Friday night was a strong and definite NO. The Secretary’s proposal managed to unite Israel’s disparate group of key political leaders from Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman on the right, through Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni on the left, the leaders of the Israeli government were horrified that Kerry would present such a bad deal.
Comments from unnamed senior government sources to Army Radio, Channel 2 and other Hebrew outlets have described the secretary as amateurish, incompetent, incapable of understanding the material he is dealing with.
The unnamed sources, quoted by Israel’s Channel 2 TV, said Kerry “dug a tunnel under the Egyptian ceasefire proposal” — which Israel accepted and Hamas rejected last week — and presented the Israeli government with a text that accepted “most of the demands” raised by Hamas, the Islamist terror group that rules the Strip.In its Sunday edition, Ha'aretz perhaps the most anti-Netanyahu major Israeli newspaper published an analysis ripping apart the Kerry offer as embarrassing and accused the Secretary of State of lying to the Israeli government and lying to the world by claiming he never presented a framework of a deal to Israel.
To the “horror” of the Israeli ministers, the Kerry proposal accepted Hamas’s demands for the opening of border crossings into Gaza — where Israel and Egypt fear the import of weaponry; the construction of a seaport; and the creation of a post-conflict funding channel for Hamas from Qatar and other countries, according to the sources. The proposal, meanwhile, did not even provide for Israel to continue demolishing the Hamas network of “terror tunnels” dug under the Israeli border.
Kerry, as is his wont, seemed and sounded as if he came from a parallel universe. He claimed to have never presented Israel with a formal offer for a cease-fire, slammed the Israeli media's "mischievous reports" and promised that Netanyahu's office will issue a clarification.The truth is not only did he present a deal, but the deal was the opposite of what Kerry told them would be in the deal and as Haaretz explained, "it might as well have been penned by Khaled Meshal. It was everything Hamas could have hoped for. "
As if that wasn't enough, Kerry claimed he made significant progress in the cease-fire talks and said, deadpan, that the disagreements with Israel are purely on matters of terminology. Reality, of course, was completely different. If anything happened on Friday it was another deep crisis in trust between Israeli senior cabinet members and the American secretary of state.
The document recognized Hamas' position in the Gaza Strip, promised the organization billions in donation funds and demanded no dismantling of rockets, tunnels or other heavy weaponry at Hamas' disposal. The document placed Israel and Hamas on the same level, as if the first is not a primary U.S. ally and as if the second isn't a terror group which overtook part of the Palestinian Authority in a military coup and fired thousands of rockets at Israel.After his Friday screw-up, on Saturday Kerry went to Paris to negotiate with Qatar, a major sugar daddy of Hamas (and where the Hamas leaders take refuge) and Turkey (who called Israel's self defense campaign Genocide and compared Israeli Premier Netanyahu to Hitler. Mysteriously he did not bring Israel, Egypt, or the PA to his Paris sessions angering all three of the omitted parties.
(...) The secretary of state's draft empowered the most radical and problematic elements in the region – Qatar, Turkey, and Hamas – and was a slap on the face to the rapidly forming camp of Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, who have many shared interests. What Kerry's draft spells for the internal Palestinian political arena is even direr: It crowns Hamas and issues Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with a death warrant.
It's not clear what Kerry was thinking when he presented this draft. It's unclear what he had in mind when he convened the Paris summit. It can only be seen as surreal. Along with foreign ministers from Europe's major nations Kerry greeted with regal honors Hamas' Qatari and Turkish patrons, ignoring what Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority might have had to say.
Here's the bottom line, if anything Kerry's intrusion into the cease-fire process has served to screw it up even more than it had been prior to his entrance. Like others in the Obama administration, on too many foreign policy issues, the Secretary of State is so desperate to create a deal that he abandons reason.
8 comments:
Correction: MLFA is not affiliated in any way with the Muslim Brotherhood or any other foreign group. MLFA is an independent, donor-funded, American charitable civil liberties legal fund.
MLFA is not listed in the original Washington Free Beacon article or in the proposed bill (Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2014). Not sure why the author of this post added MLFA, but this is an error.
MLFA is an independent legal fund setup to defend civil liberties in American courtrooms and to safeguard the integrity of our judicial system. It does not have any ties or affiliations with any foreign groups. It is a 100% American group that believes in, supports, and defends the U.S. Constitution and the liberties guaranteed in its Bill of Rights. Learn more at https://www.mlfa.org
Others Disagree..the head of CAIR described the USCMO origination which the MLFA helped to form as:
"The first U.S. Muslim Brotherhood political party, and indeed the first religious identity political party in the history of this country."
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2014/05/19/genesis-of-the-us-council-of-muslim-organizations-muslim-brotherhood-political-party/
The head of CAIR did not describe USCMO that way. The statement you attributed to Nihad Awad was not attributed to him in the article you referenced. That statement was commentary (opinion) of the article's author, not a quote from anyone associated with USCMO.
Then why is the group inviting the Muslim brotherhood to your fundraisers? ocal media is reporting on the
appearance of Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Tariq Ramadan at a recent
fund-raiser for the Muslim Legal Fund of America. According to a report in the Detroit Free Press
Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.6544/pub_detail.asp#ixzz38hpV3X3o
Why do you have as your leader Khalil Meek who was the head of the DFW CAIR another Muslim brotherhood group?
He was also the spokesman for the supporters of the HLF which was convicted of funding Hamas which is a MB associated terrorist organizations.
I can also list all if the USCMO reports which said that the group was meant as a Muslim Brotherhood party in the Us..just play google and you will see too
So does this mean they won't be invited to the White House for tea anymore? http://weaselzippers.us/171432-obama-meets-with-muslim-brotherhood-leader-at-the-white-house/
Tariq Ramadan is not a "Global Muslim Brotherhood leader" as you and Family Security Matters claim. The article FSM references does not make any such claim.
FSM draws a conclusion based on guilt-by-association, which is a principle that America's Founders opposed. The U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights forbids guilt by association in our criminal justice system. Each individual is responsible for his or her actions -- not the actions of friends, neighbors, or family members.
According to Wikipedia, "Time magazine has twice recognized [Tariq] Ramadan: first in 2000, naming him one of the world's top 100 innovators of the 21st Century (one of the world's top 7 religious leaders), and again, in 2004, as one of the world's 100 most influential people."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan
You also have your facts incorrect about HLF. The charity was not convicted of funding Hamas. In fact, during the trial, prosecutors admitted that no funds from HLF went to Hamas. Every penny was accounted for and all funds went to humanitarian aid. The only question was whether particular committees through which aid was distributed were controlled by Hamas, which attorneys now have proof that they were not.
People have a constitutional right to an adequate legal defense in this country. We, as a freedom-loving people, should not allow bigotry and hatred to sway us from these founding principles. Defending the principle and practice of affording fair trials for everyone is a noble and worthwhile mission. This is MLFA's mission.
Just as it is unfair for people to claim you and your blog is associated with or funded by "the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy" (as you state at the top of every page), it is unfair to make false claims of association against independent Muslim groups or individuals.
The issue at hand here is that your blog post claims that MLFA is a MB-affiliated organization. MLFA is not. The article you reference does not make any such claims, but your addition of MLFA in your introduction may give readers the incorrect impression that the referenced article does make that claim or that the proposed bill makes such a connection. Yet, neither the Washington Free Beacon article nor the proposed bill (Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2014) make any such claim or reference.
Whether you dislike or disagree with any group or individual's beliefs, race, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, or political ideas has no bearing on the facts. Just because Google indexes web pages containing false claims also does not validate those claims as being factual.
As a writer, I would hope you would adhere to a higher standard of accuracy than what Google often provides.
It may be best to just stop comments altogether as these trolls have all the time in the world to discredit you. Or to state at the beginning it is to promote conservative values and anything contrary will be deleted.
Just as it is unfair to for people to claim you and your blog is associated with "the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy" (as you state at the top of every page), it is unfair to make baseless claims of association against independent Muslim groups or individuals.
By including MLFA in your introduction, you give readers the false impression that MLFA was mentioned in the referenced article and proposed legislation. However, MLFA was not mentioned.
Again, MLFA is not affiliated with MB or any other organization. MLFA is an independent organization supporting the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. I would hope that you agree that Muslims should be afforded the same legal rights as anyone else in America, yes?
Post a Comment