This article was originally published in March 2010. It is the successor to Obama Aimes to impose a solution on Israel written 4 months earlier. Although Obama didn’t succeed in finishing the job in the first term, he is well on his way to finishing it in his second term. Given all the concessions Netanyahu has made and the determination of the US, the EU and the UN to impose this solution, what choice does Netanyahu and Israel now have?
By Ted Belman
During the lead up to his election victory, he surrounded himself with a host of vehemently anti-Israel advisors including Lee Hamilton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Gen Jones, many of whom advocated imposing a solution on Israel..
He also made common cause with Jewish leftists represented by J Street and Israel Policy Forum who were urging him to increase the pressure on Israel and if that didn’t work, to impose a solution on Israel.
So it was no surprise that he started his term of office by attacking Israel, America’s best and most steadfast ally, declaring that all settlements were illegal and demanding a complete settlement construction freeze east of the greenline including in Jerusalem. He went so far as to repudiate the US commitment set out in the Bush letter ’04 to Sharon, declaring there was no agreement. Elliot Abrams and others involved in the negotiations which led to the letter, testified otherwise.
This letter also affirmed that “as part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338.” Pres Bush had always supported a negotiated settlement and this letter did likewise. Noticeably absent was any reference to the Saudi Plan. The letter also contained a commitment, that “the United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan”.
By repudiating this letter as a U.S. commitment, Pres Obama opened the way for a settlement to be imposed according to the Saudi Plan rather than Res 242.
He set a goal of achieving an agreement in two years. One year is up, what has he accomplished? At first blush, it would appear, not much. But the reality is otherwise.
He got PM Netanyahu to agree to a two-state solution for the first time and to the terms of reference for negotiations, namely,
- “an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
[Note , in my original posting I had a link for this but it is no longer working. I am trying to find confirmation of this agreement but so far have not found any. In any event in the present negotiations Natanyahu has obtained the right to reject these terms of reference which he has done though Abbas and Kerry still follow them.]
These terms leave very little wiggle room so it does not matter that Pres Obama agreed with PM Netanyahu’s demand that there be no pre-conditions or that negotiations not start where Ehud Olmert left off.
Noticeably absent from the terms of reference were Jerusalem and refugees, two items that could scuttle talks and probably will. Pres Obama is on record of wanting Jerusalem divided and not favoring the return of refugees to Israel.
He also got Netanyahu to agree to a temporary constructions freeze, not near what he was demanding, but enough to enable him to get Abbas to agree to the proximity talks.
Since attaining these building blocks, Pres Obama’s has witnessed falling approval ratings and increasing pressure to focus on domestic issues. How will this affect the progress made?
The Arab League has given its support to “proximity talks” but only for four months. This has enabled Abbas to likewise agree. The talks therefore will start soon and end before the temporary freeze ends. But no one expects an agreement to be reached.
The U.S. managed to accomplish this by sending a document to the Palestinians responding to their enquires which provided, “We expect both parties to act seriously and in good faith. If one side, in our judgment, is not living up to our expectations, we will make our concerns clear and we will act accordingly to overcome that obstacle”
The document also committed the US to “sharing messages between the parties and offering our own ideas and bridging proposals.” and reiterated “Our core remains a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian State with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967,”
This commitment by the U.S. was a determining factor in the Palestinian’s and the Arab League’s decision to agree to the U.S. proposal on indirect talks.
Both the agreed terms of reference above quoted and this document imply that Israel must return all occupied territories rather than some occupied territories as was the original intention of Res 242.
One wonders why PM Netanyahu would enter fruitless negotiations that would result in Israel being blamed and ultimately dictated to. In doing so, PM Netanyahu abandoned Israel’s previous demands for direct negotiations thereby allowing the Arab League to have a say. For that matter, Abbas also abandoned a long held position that only the PA can negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians.
The Arab League has thus given Obama four months only to achieve an agreement, failing which it will take over of the process. Pres Obama is only too happy to pass the buck.
When the Arab League announced their support, their Secretary General said;
- “We intend in four months time to bring back the whole of the peace process to the Security Council thus ending the role of honest broker role played so far by the US
and to put an end to the peace process.
“We will put the results of the talks before the Security Council and then ask this important body in charge of maintaining peace and security to decide on the steps forward.”
This in effect would abrogate the Oslo Accords and the Roadmap which heretofore have been considered binding.
Pursuant to Article 33, of the United Nations Charter, members, Israel included, who are “parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice” and the Security Council “shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.”
Israel could well be ordered to submit to arbitration or judicial settlement. Perhaps this is the reason PM Netanyahu keeps reaffirming Israel’s desire to negotiate.
The Security Council has the “”primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”. In fact, Article 37 provides, “If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.” Chapter VII gives the Security Council the right to enforce these recommendations.
You can be sure that the Arab League is well aware of these provisions. It is highly doubtful that the US will veto any such move.
The EU is already on board. European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, told a British audience in London on Saturday,
- “After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution,”
“It would accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimize the end of claims.”
“If the parties are not able to stick to it [referring to the UN-imposed timetable -ed.], then a solution backed by the international community should be put on the table.”
Solana added that the UN-imposed “two-state solution” should include resolution of issues such as control over Israel’s capital, the city of Jerusalem, as well as border definitions, security arrangements and the “right of return” by millions of foreign descendants of Arab refugees who abandoned their homes during the 1948 war.
Netanyahu will thus be faced with making the best deal he can for fear of a worse deal being imposed. He can also decide to reject the authority of the United Nations resulting in Israel’s expulsion and the imposition of serious sanctions.
Speaking of serious sanctions, it appears unlikely they will be imposed on Iran. Israels only option then is the military one, the sooner the better.
Pres Obama may well decide to posture as Israel’s defender and save her from the worst thereby improving his reelection chances without jeopardizing the imposed solution. For him, a win-win all around, that is, if Israel doesn’t reject it.
My comment (13?)to vinnie has disappeared. this is the 3rd comment today the has disappared. Not moderated but disappeared entirely. the software sucks.
Vinnie Said:
I believe that the main characteristic of Obama is that he is a corrupt opportunist. I think that those who have supported him and help his ascent to power are drawn first to his corruption and potential for future corruptibility, extortion and blackmail. He has a number of scandals which allow him to be blackmailed to almost anything and also able to be got rid of easily because he could not contest being dumped. Imagine where Obama would be if his gay chicago bathhouse exploits, which resulted in the murder of 3 gay lovers at Trinity church, were to be allowed to be exposed by the MSM. Right now all his scandals are suppressed. His way is made smooth by various other appointed corrupt opportunists within the network like sotomayor. The powers that be like corrupted opportunists because once they get them in they have them under complete control. They tell them who to appoint(other corrupt opportunists who must play ball) and the puppet master pulls the strings of all the others within the corrupt network. you can notice that the network has been in complete support of Obama but all that can be easily withdrawn and him and his family thrown to the wolves. when you are to be sacrificed you must play ball or be buried. look at Petraeus and what happened with his scandals. I think that ideology has little to do with it all I believe that the ultra rich like the saudis and soros all play ball together and use ideologies only as a vehicle and tool to operate their useful idiots and networks. the Saudis own the islamic clerical Wahhabi network and have proliferated that network world-wide, and with the help of obama in the US. this network serves as a propaganda tool, a secret police, a recruitment tool for jihadis. They also buy up media like fox news as another network of control(plus universities,etc) Another example of a similar “power that be” is soros. He also has his network of political and “humanitarian” NGO’s throughout the world. Both the sauds and soros are ultra rich and grease their networks using money. There is no difference between them and looking at ideology is a red herring which they all use to blur the difference between their aims and the vehicles/tools needed to achive their aims. Money and ideology are employed by soros and sauds. Obviously there are others at the same level with the same aims. What are those aims: I don’t know but I would wager that they include maintaining and growing relative wealth and power to insure their families for generations to come. Soros and Saud are exactly the same if one removes the blinders of Ideologies. I imagine that some powers like Soros are quite impressed with the power structure of the sauds, their networks and their ability to command everything of their slaves: their minds, their spirits, their bodies and their loyalties. The muslim ideology is the only one capable of making its subjects do absolutely anything and even doing the opposite tomorrow of what was done today. It is a formidable ideology and network which is likely coveted by all who are relegated to work with less than absolute power like Soros. Once one removes the ideological red herrings, which everyone focuses on in talk shows, then one can easily see how interests connect at the highest levels. Soros makes billions in the decreases of currency. His political investments in each country usually leads to a drop in currency price(a common output of increased socialism). the big bucks who chase huge investments and commodities can make billions by influencing outcomes to their favor.
Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, has introduced Senate Resolution 203, which supports Secretary of State Kerry’s effort to reduce Israel to “Auschwitz borders.”
We are well beyond the point of clever analysis. Americans must be contacting their Senators in opposition to S. Res. 203. Israelis must be contacting Knesset members and reminding them of the June 1967 US Joint Chiefs of Staff memo that determined Israel would need to keep 60+% of Yehuda and Shomron to have secure borders.
If you are clever enough to figure out the exact nature of the forces against Israel, hopefully you are clever enough to figure out that sharing clever analysis with like-minded individuals, without then going to the next step of political activism, is a hopelessly dumb exercise.
Vinnie Said:
I consider him to be a classic Marxist and narcissist. I believe he is anti all religions including Islam. I believe he sees Islam’s potential for implementing his personal and Marxist agenda which pivots on support for MB, and against all non Marxist dictators who he considers fascist. he considers the West and America to be imperialist and colonialist. To that end, everything and everyone is useable and expendable while he puts in place what he hopes will be mechanisms and institutions that transform America. He will use Muslims if they can help advancing and implementing his vision for America and the world-but also war against them. He will be a christian to advance his political persona when necessary. Then ignore the subject once it served his purpose. He will trade one strongman leader for another.
Obama: is treacherous. He’s a carbon copy of the American Jews: a perplexed, rootless Muslim, willing to align himself with any strong leader, including an anti-Semitic pastor, but also willing to renounce them for a stronger one. A Muslim by birth, he would lead an infidel army against his co-coreligionists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and use clandestine forces to fight Muslims elsewhere. Like the Jews, he might reject his religious heritage and support a strong Muslim or anti Muslim. Just as Jewish politicians of the Diaspora make some of the worst anti-Semites, Obama might well turn against Muslims. Such an outcome cannot be predicted, but is possible. That’s the frame of reference I apply to him.
Like every fanatical good Marxist he has a vision and will use Muslims or anyone else to achieve it.
All of the people Obama has surrounded himself with are mirrors of himself at least his thinking and beliefs. They more than anything else tells us who and what he is: Not only the 1st Black POTUS but the 1St Marxist POTUS.
@ Vinnie:
Vinnie, I believe your on to something everyone is afraid to think.
Could it also be the george soros candidate? This character is for a world order and he is an anti-Semite of the highest degree.
The signers of the Declaration had no idea the Freedom of the Press would end up being the liberal left supporters of those who want to destroy the Constitution.
@ yamit82:
Bernard Ross gives an interesting and informative answer.
Another angle:
More precisely, I consider Obama to be a Saudi “Manchurian Candidate” figure, as distinct from a mere puppet.
By this I mean that I don’t see him so much taking orders directly from Riyadh; rather, he has been “programmed” by his Saudi-sponsored mentors such as Khalid Al Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, and Edward Said, to place utmost priority on the Palestinian issue. He thinks he is his own man; in his own warped way, I do not doubt that in his own mind, he thinks he is doing what is ‘best’ for America.
As you are no doubt aware, to the Saudis, the Palis are mere cannon fodder. They created this “problem” very consciously, manufactured it as a means of delegitimizing Israel in the manner of white minority-ruled Rhodesia in the 70s, and what ultimately happened to Rhodesia is the end game they have in mind for Israel. The Palis are the vehicle for making this happen.
But as for Obama, true to the programming of his mentors, he really believes all this b.s. about the “poor, oppressed Palestinians”. The Saudis succeeded only too well with Obama on this issue, and now they’ve got their ‘Frankenstein monster’ careening out of control in the village below…putting the fate of the Palestinians on a higher plane of priority than the far more dangerous issue of a nuclear Iran.
You see, Obama – being his own man in his own mind, remember – is far more clever than the Saudis. He’s going to do right by his old buddies by using the issue of an imminently nuclear Iran as a means of blackmailing Israel into capitulating on the Pali issue. So, he figures he’ll get two for the price of one: Israel can’t afford to take the existential risk of Iran going nuclear, they can’t act without U.S. support and would much rather the U.S. pulls the trigger in any event, so at some point, they HAVE to “cry uncle” on the Pali issue. At least that is Obama’s calculus (and given Netanyahu’s behavior of late, on the surface at least, it appears that he just might be right). And if Israel balks anyway, he’ll let Iran go nuclear. They’re “Israel’s problem”…the U.S. can “contain” Iran, and the U.S. is far too big for them to be able to hurt that much anyway. Just ask Zbigniew Brzezinski (I’m sure Obama did).
As to supporting the MB in the face of apparent Saudi objections, you invest the Saudis with way to much rationality and coherency than they deserve. Which Saudis object? The boozing and whoring members of the royal family…or the Wahabbi clerics who really call the shots, and whom the royals live in fear of?
In any event, we can’t look at Obama solely through the prism of an Islamic agenda, Saudi or MB or otherwise.
He is the perfect synthesis, in one stooge leader package, of the “red/green alliance”. He may be technically a Moslem by means of his patriarchy, but I submit to you that religion means very little to him. His kooky left-wing proto-hippie mum, along with other assorted far left types that populated his childhood and early adulthood, left a far deeper mark on his ideology than his absent Kenyan father or his Westernized Moslem stepfather. You listen to his speeches, his debate performances, etc., and overwhelmingly, what one sees on display is a far left liberal academia twit, with only a passing affection for things Islamic.
To the extent that he is sympathetic to Islam, this can be seen within the context of academia left wing Soviet apologist types of the Cold War era. I met my share of these during my college years; snotty punks who seemed to get stoned by means of giving the finger to the Big Bad Rich White Guy Imperialist U.S.A., by supporting whoever was against the same, which in the 80s, was the Soviets and their proxies.
As an aside: Did you know that at the close of the 2012 Democratic Convention, there was this big screen graphic of naval vessels put up for the live and TV audiences while the national anthem played…except that the naval vessels depicted were not American, but Russian? I swear I am not making this up. At the time, this little “blooper” was publicly written off as a “mistake”, but having gone to school with many like Obama, I can assure you that it was NO mistake. That was their little “joke”, in the same vein as the Beatles’ “Back in the U.S.S.R.” track, and I’m sure the top echeolon Obama apparatchiks laughed like hell over that one.
But I digress…
When the Soviet Union collapsed, and everyone the cool, hip denizens of f*** you communist revolutionary chic supported was proven to be an empty fraud (e.g., Che, Mao, etc….the kind that appeared on t-shirts of that time), then these same people needed someone ELSE for whom they could prostitute themselves, on behalf of whom they could give the finger to “the man”. Enter the Islamist movement.
The MB fits the bill very nicely in this regard, as an “oppressed revolutionary movement”, in contrast to the “establishment” regimes of the GCC. The “cool” factor of supporting the MB, in the warped minds of the likes of idiot leftover sixties lefties or younger wannabes – e.g., Hillary and Obama, respectively – far outweighs the concerns of Gulf Arab royals.
The Saudis may have supported his rise to power, and they may have programmed Obama, but he is on “autopilot” now, he had other influences, and his agenda is not precisely aligned with theirs.
They align on the issue of f****** Israel. How long the Gulf Arab Petrodollar Prostitution Empire will continue to support him in the face of their other disagreements is an open question. So far, it looks like that support is holding up. I imagine that from the Saudi point of view, there aren’t any better alternatives than having a stooge of this caliber sitting in the Oval Office.
You can make up any fantasy scenario you want, even one that somehow has Obama imposing a “solution” on the Palestinians and the Israelis. Of course in your fantasy world anything can happen, as if Obama really cares at all about what happens in the Middle East or if even the EU has the power or the will to “impose” anything. I love reading the paranoid rants of the extreme Right wing nationalists in Israel, they are amusing in the extreme and better yet they make their proponents look silly.
UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 1967) guarantees Israel secure borders.
In June 1967, answering a request from President Johnson, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff determined the territory Israel would need to retain to have secure borders (Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense, JCSM 373-67, June 29, 1967). The Joint Chiefs determined that Israel would need to retain 60% of Yehuda and Shomron. Given all the missiles in Lebanon and the experience of Israelis living near Gaza, this 60% figure is an absolute minimum.
You can argue that the whole world has become Nazi Germany and that Jewish rights under law are going to be crushed regardless of the law. However, if we are not at that dire point then by international law, the UN Charter and the resolutions of the UN Security Council, Israel is absolutely entitled to borders well beyond Barack Obama’s 1967-lines-with-swaps Auschwitz borders.
Those of you in Israel must publicize the Joint Chiefs assessment amongst the people of Israel. The Joint Chiefs memo represents a politically neutral assessment of Israel’s security needs and for this reason gives a truthful assessment of what land Israel must retain to be safe. Allegedly the question of Israel’s security needs is now being evaluated again. Given the political environment the conclusions of this new study have likely been decided in advance.
Those of us in the US need to make sure Congress opposes Obama’s betrayal of America’s word, commitments and legal obligations.
yamit82 Said:
his election was based on an anti-war platform and he has spent much of his time creating the appearance of the same. In Libya most was left to the euros. In Syria he pretends to be wondering whether he should supply arms to the syrian “rebels” when he has in fact been supplying arms and training to the GCC mercenary jihadis in cooperation with GCC(saudi/qatar),Turkey and Jordan. Most of his electoral constituency of the left would be completely against a war with Iran and i would think any US pres would avoid that with a ten foot pole after watching the Bush affair. i don’t think anyone can deny any longer that he has been cooperating with the GCC sunni war against Iran’s proxies in Syria. perhaps he is hoping that he will not have to do it , perhaps he and the GCC want Israel to do it for them, perhaps he thinks the GCC jihadis and others can destabilize iran enough to bring them to the table. he has been talking aobut diplomacy perhaps he thinks it can work and then he will be wrong. Perhaps everybody is working together to attack Israel with the assembled mercenaries in place.
yamit82 Said:
I don’t buy that the MB is anti saudi just like I don’t buy that AQ is anti saudi. The saudis funded the jihadis in afghanistan in the 80’s and the current jihadis in syria now. Al qaeda, the MB are both calling holy war against syria. e.g. MB qadawi recently in egypt and AQ zawahari. Qatar and saudi are both funding sunni jihad in syria. They all look to me like they are on the same page even though there is talk about differences. I posted to you recently the many connections between the MB and the saudis especially through the MWL. The MB is the parent of AQ and saudi funds AQ while qatar funds MB. In spite of the well known obviously corrupt saudi behavior in london of gamboling, whoring and prostitution the wahhabi islam clerics work with them and together their con works on the public. Perhaps Morsi was not cooperative enough, perhaps like hamas he was trying to play 2 sides of the fence, who knows. Certainly the egyptian MB sunni clerics were echoing the GCC agenda in Syria.
http://tavernkeepers.com/the-three-factions-of-hamas/
If this is true then I suspect that the world leadership as opposed to Egypts Morsi MB leadership is closer to GCC influence. Why didn’t he ask them to follow the continuing MB leadership in egypt?
Vinnie Said:
If this were so why doesn’t he take care of Iran?
Why the support for the anti Saudi or GCC MB?
Back to your drawing-board of possible speculations re: Obama.
Obama gave Netanyahu the ammunition he needed to resist all of this when he got up in front of Abbas this past March and openly admonished him to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. This may have been shameless pandering on the part of Obama to Israeli media, but Netanyahu needs to hold him to this.
I am becoming more and more disappointed in Netanyahu’s lack of resolve. He has been good at times – e.g., when he insisted on Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state as the price for a three-month extension in the “freeze” back in October of 2010 – but right now, he seems to be folding. Even two or three months ago he seemed to be holding firm. I have to wonder just what Obama threatened him with.
Netanyahu should be beating the recognition drum nonstop. If the Palis launch another Intifada, this needs to be the end of them as an organization. There will never be peace as long as the PA/PLO exist as a coherent political entity.
Crushing the PA/PLO will lead to all sorts of awful consequences for Israel in the short term; perhaps even expulsion from the UN. But there is no other choice in the long term; as long as the PLO is there, the pressure on Israel to concede herself out of viable existence will never cease.
Taiwan functions as a de facto independent country even though they no longer have a seat in the UN. Many countries – e.g., India, China – with large markets benefit too much from trade with Israel to stop such interactions over the Palestinians.
It would be great if Israel had someone else to turn to on the UNSC in the event that the doo-doo hits the air-conditioning apparatus, but for now, this is not happening.
For her survival, she may have to risk expulsion from the UN, and alienating the U.S., by crushing the Palestinians in J&S once and for all. Nothing is permanent. Obama won’t be around forever. The UN may well fall apart in the next ten years anyway, and even if they don’t, a future U.S. president may usher in Israel’s re-admittance.
The bottom line is not to surrender to Obama for the sake of anything. He is Israel’s enemy. There is no doubting that. He is merely a Saudi programmed, anti-Israel political cruise missile, doing the bidding of his kaffiya-clad masters and mentors. He doesn’t give a crap about anything else, except furthering the agenda of such cretins. By trusting him to any degree, Israel signs her own death warrant.
its good to watch the video link to the inside story video. Listening to them all talk i would say egg is on their faces now. what happened to the four month threat, or is that now the faux state? Its especially funny to listen to them and knowing that they do not have a clue as to where they will all be now. They all got bigger problems now than israel. 🙂
Israel must stand firm and watch the detractors fall apart.
what is strange is the chaos that the arabs have fallen into since these events in 2010. What happened to the arab league threats? Much of the arab league has internal problems which are serious.
there is no pal entity that can survive on its own except in gaza and now other arab states are falling apart too. things have changed and the best thing is if there is more chaos in the arab lands.
Yidvocate Said:
at first i did not realized this was 2 years old and now in looking back it is a very good indication of how much things can, and have changed. I also watched the video link in the story and it is amazing to consider how all these would be attackers are in the shit. It is heartening to realize what has actually transpired since then, as opposed to the catastrophe that was envisioned. things have changed and the situation is much better than that envisioned at the time of the story and the then behavior of the arab league
A dire scenario indeed but not unlike the one foretold by the Jewish prophets for the end of days.
Maybe this is history unfolding as it should or as meant to be.