Guardian

Guardian claim that Martin Indyk favors Israel contradicted by Ynet interview


An official Guardian editorial on January 1, 2014, titled ‘Israel-Palestinian talks: perpetual motion‘, which predictably blamed Israel for the lack of progress in talks between the two parties up until that time, included this brief comment on US special envoy to the negotiations, Martin Indyk:

Mr Kerry has made a new start but he has made it with advisers like Martin Indyk, who lean toward the Israeli view

This throwaway line about Indyk – who previously served several diplomatic roles under Bill Clinton – struck us as a bizarre allegation given Indyk’s political sympathies and past statements. These include his enthusiastic support for New Israel Fund – an NGO which funds groups engaging in BDS and other delegitimization campaigns – and comments he reportedly made that ‘Israeli intransigence’ was contributing to US military casualties in Afghanistan.  In 2004, Indyk also publicly urged the Israeli government to cede the Golan Heights to Syria in order to achieve ‘peace’.

More recently, Indyk has been identified as the anonymous source in a report by Yedioth Aharonoth columnist Nahum Barnea last week in which an unnamed American official slammed Israel for allegedly sabotaging peace talks.

Here are a few of the comments by the official believed to be Indyk:

Settlements are to blame

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

‘We need another intifada’

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

Stubborn Jews

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

So, according to Indyk: the settlements (and Jewish stubbornness) were the primary reasons the negotiations failed, and only a new violent intifada would create the circumstances by which talks could succeed.    

Tell us: Does this sound like the musings of an American diplomat “who leans toward the Israeli view”, as the Guardian claimed?

Enhanced by Zemanta

9 replies »

  1. Well, this narrative of Indyk is also spread by the known anti-Israelian editor of the Standard in Vienna
    Der ausgesprochene Israel-Freund Indyk, dessen Neutralität vor den Verhandlungen von manchen angezweifelt wurde, dürfte laut der Information von Haaretz auch einer der US-Verhandler sein, die dem israelischen Siedlungsbau im Westjordanland die Hauptschuld am Scheitern des Prozesses zuschreiben.
    Outspoken friend of Israel, that is.
    The net of twisters of Arab news in Europe who never tell anything about Antisemitism as daily repeated ideology in the Arab and Islam world
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Netzwerk-Fachjournalisten-islamische-Welt-NEFAIS/196423630372106

  2. Read this article which talks in detail how Indyk did everything to appease this mass murderer Arafat and how Indyk was trying to get Israel to give away Jerusalem and surrender to the Terrorstinians.

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/martin-indyk-the-objective-mediator/
    MARTIN INDYK: THE “OBJECTIVE MEDIATOR” ?
    David Bedein
    July 23, 2013,

    Indyk’s record as an objective mediator should be examined.
    Indyk is generally looked upon as the man who planned the Oslo process that gave Yassir Arafat and the PLO armed control over most of the Palestinian Arab population.

    In 1994, journalist Haim Shibi of the Yediot Aharonot newspaper reported that in 1987, Indyk had convinced more than 150 members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from territories gained in 1967 Six Day War.

    Indyk oversaw every step of the Oslo process with that precise policy in mind – Israel giving up land that is vital to her defense.
    Indyk, during his stint as US ambassador to Israel. did not hesitate to misrepresent the intentions and policies of the PLO while doing so, obfuscating the fact that the PLO never adhered to the basic commitment it made to cancel its covenant that calls for the eradication of the Jewish state.

    In September 1995, with the signing of the second Olso interim agreement at the White House, the U.S. Congress mandated that the U.S. would only be able to provide funds to the Palestinian Authority and provide diplomatic status to Arafat if the PLO covenant was finally canceled.

    The PLO never did so, yet the foreign aid money kept rolling in to the Palestinian Authority.

    On April 24, 1996, the PLO convened a special session of its Palestine National Council (PNC) to consider the subject of the PLO covenant cancellation.
    Our news agency dispatched a Palestinian TV crew to cover that session, which turned out to be the only crew that filmed the event.
    The film crew brought back a videotape that showed a lively discussion, the conclusion of which was to ratify Arafat’s suggestion that the PNC simply create a committee to “discuss” the subject.

    At my own expense, I rushed the VHS copy to Ambassador Indyk for comment, but he did not respond to that request for comment.
    Instead, he chose to ignore the decision of the PNC and, in moment of perjury. issued a falsified report to President Clinton and to the U.S. Congress that the PLO covenant had been canceled.

    As a result of Indyk’s false report, Arafat was provided with a red carpet greeting at the White House on May 1, 1996, and the PLO was only then allowed to open an office in Washington.

    The next day, however, Hebrew University Professor Yehoshua Porat, a former leader in Peace Now who ran on slot 13 on the Meretz ticket in 1992,an expert in Palestinian studies and fluent in Arabic, convened a press conference in which he shared protocols of the PNC session and the videotape which proved Arafat never canceled the PLO covenant.

    But the damage was already done. Thanks to the obfuscations of Martin Indyk, Arafat and the PLO received United States diplomatic recognition and foreign aid from the U.S., which continues to this day.

    In December 1998, President Clinton, finally convinced that Indyk’s 1996 covenant report was wrong, arrived in Gaza, accompanied by Indyk, where they asked for a show of hands from members of the PNC as to whether they want to cancel the PLO covenant and make peace with Israel. The real answer, however, they got the next day. Arafat’s personal spokesman, Yassir Abed Abbo, told the media that the PNC had, of course, not canceled any covenant.
    Yet there is more.

    In September, 2000, Dr. Uzi Landau, now a senior minister in the Israeli government, who served then as the head of the Knesset State Control Committee (the equivalent of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs), took the unusual step of filing a formal complaint against United States Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.

    Landau quoted the September 16, 2000 report in the Guardian of London that “the U.S. Ambassador to Israel yesterday urged Israel to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians.” Mr. Indyk said: “There is no other solution but to share the holy city… ” and Landau also noted that Ambassador Indyk was similarly quoted by the Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post and Ha’aretz.

    Landau went on to say that “the timing of the speech and the political context in which it was delivered leave no room for doubt that Ambassador Indyk was calling on the Government of Israel to divide Jerusalem. Indeed, the Guardian correspondent described the remarks as ‘a sharp departure from Washington orthodoxy in recent years.’”

    In addition to his remarks concerning Jerusalem, Ambassador Indyk offered his views regarding secular-religious tensions in Israel and the role of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism. He also intimated his tacit support for Prime Minister Barak’s so-called secular revolution. As a commentator in the liberal daily Ha’aretz, noted: “readers are urged to imagine what the Americans would say if the Israeli ambassador to Washington were to come to a local religious institution and say such things.”

    Landau, who has served in a ministerial post in the Israeli government that negotiated sensitive relations between the U.S. and Israel, mentioned in his letter to Clinton that he wished to “strongly protest Ambassador Indyk’s blatant interference in Israel’s internal affairs and democratic process… I am sure you would agree that it is simply unacceptable for a foreign diplomat to involve himself so provocatively in the most sensitive affairs of the country to which he is posted.

    If a foreign ambassador stationed in the United States were to involve himself in a domestic American policy debate regarding race relations or abortion, the subsequent outcry would not be long in coming… Ambassador Indyk’s remarks about Jerusalem are an affront to Israel, particularly since he made them in the heart of the city that he aspires to divide. By needlessly raising Arab expectations on the Jerusalem issue, rather than moderating them, Ambassador Indyk has caused inestimable damage to the peace process. It is likewise inexplicable that Ambassador Indyk would choose to interject his private religious preferences into the debate over secular-religious tensions in Israel.”

    Landau made it a point even more by stating that “this is not the first time that the American Embassy in Israel has interfered in our internal affairs. In February, I wrote to you in the wake of media reports that Embassy officials were lobbying Israeli-Arab leaders regarding a possible referendum on the Golan Heights. My fear is that such interference in Israel’s affairs is rapidly becoming routine.”

    Landau concluded his letter to Clinton with a “request that you recall Ambassador Indyk to the United States.”

    Two months later, in early November 2000, Arafat’s Second Intifada terror campaign was getting underway, Indyk was strongly condemning Israel’s military actions against Arafat’s forces. Indyk remarked that what the Israelis had to do was to get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, such as Hamas, Tanzim gangs and the Islamic Jihad diplomatically. He did not mention that Arafat’s own Force 17 bodyguard, Preventive Security and other Palestinian Authority forces were also responsible for a considerable portion of the violence. Indyk never wanted to hold Arafat responsible when Arafat’s forces carried out terrorist activities.

    In late November 2000, when Israel issued a “white paper” on intercepted intelligence from Arafat’s headquarters that showed documentary evidence that Arafat and his mainstream PLO gangs were indeed facilitating the campaign of terror, Indyk made a special trip to Jerusalem to demand that the Israeli government withdraw its report. Indyk had just reported to the U.S. Congress that the Palestinian groups organizing the terror campaign were NOT under Arafat’s control.

    Eight months later, on May 21, 2001, in an address to Ben Gurion University, Indyk stuck to his guns and continued to position that Arafat and the PLO were the “U.S. colleagues in the War on Terror by telling Israel”: “What you do is you get Arafat to act against the perpetrators of the violence, Hamas, Tanzim gangs, the Islamic Jihad and you get the Israeli government to hold back the Israeli army while he does so. But that requires a great deal of energy and commitment on Arafat’s part — in very risky circumstances to take on the very angry Palestinian street — and that requires a great deal of restraint and forbearance on the part of the government of Israel.”

    Indyk’s admonition to Israel to turn the other cheek when it came to Arafat became his mantra.

  3. Isi Leibler exposes this Arafat and Assad apologist Indyk.
    If Israelis listened to Indyk, Assad would probably be gassing Jews from the Jewish Golan.

    http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4748&cpage=1#comment-49
    Indyk: a Disastrous Choice for Mediator
    Isi Leibler
    July 26, 2013

    The US State Department has floated a trial balloon to test the idea of former US Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, serving as mediator in the forthcoming peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It is not surprising that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has signaled his approval. What is incomprehensible is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has done likewise.

    Unfortunately the prospect of genuine progress in the negotiations is extraordinarily slim. There is no evidence that the Palestinian Authority will compromise on a single issue. In the unlikely event that the weak, corrupt President Abbas does make even a single concession, his Fatah supporters will immediately topple him.

    Nonetheless, an “honest broker” is essential to the process. However, Martin Indyk is not that broker. His track record in presiding over previous peace negotiations indicates that if re-appointed, he will, in all probability, direct negotiations in a manner to ensure that Israel will be blamed for their failure.

    Indyk has had an impressive political career. Educated in Australia, he moved to the US where he joined AIPAC and subsequently held executive positions at prestigious Washington, DC think-tanks (Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution). He also has assumed key political positions (Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs in the Clinton administration). After becoming a naturalized US citizen, President Clinton appointed him US Ambassador to Israel – the first foreign born and first Jew to hold the position. He served two terms, from April 1995 to September 1997 and from January 2000 to July 2001.

    Indyk’s rise in the political arena has been ascribed to his talent of adjusting to the prevailing political climate of the Democratic leadership. When President Obama was elected, Indyk aligned himself with the new leader, and enthusiastically participated in Obama’s Israel-bashing and Netanyahu-snubbing. He was unsparing and, at times, vicious in his criticism of our Prime Minister, and laid the bulk of the blame on Netanyahu for the breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

    He has moved further and further to the left as his career unfolded. He served as International Chair of the New Israel Fund, an organization that has repeatedly been castigated for funding rabid anti-Zionist and anti-Israel NGOs, including several organizations that compiled distorted and false information for the notorious Goldstone Report accusing the IDF of engaging in war crimes.

    Aside from occasional lip service to their failings, Indyk became an aggressive apologist for the Palestinians and at one stage even identified himself with those defending Arafat’s rebuff of Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s extreme concessions at Camp David.

    Indyk has made outrageous claims about Israel’s de-stabilizing effect on the Middle East, and the need for Israel’s to bend to the will of the United States, threatening, “If Israel is a superpower and does not need $3 billion in military assistance and protection, and [does not require] the efforts of the US to isolate and pressure Iran, then go ahead and do what you like. If you need the US, then you need to take American interests into account… Israel has to adjust its policy to the interest of the United States or there will be serious consequences.”

    He has also made the obscene charge that it was Israeli intransigence that contributed to US military casualties in Afghanistan, accusing Israel of endangering “a vital security interest of the United States.” The “intransigence” he was alluding to was the settlement construction then taking place in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

    He stooped even lower when he stated that Prime Minister Netanyahu should take into account that President Obama was obliged to write 30-40 condolence letters a week. To climax his antagonistic attitude towards Israel, in 2010 Indyk publicly urged Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government to cede the Golan Heights to Syria.

    Indyk frequently invokes the memory of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who he refers to as “Israel’s greatest strategic thinker.” But Rabin would have undoubtedly rejected an American spokesman or diplomat with the chutzpah to make the demands on Israel as made by Indyk. He would have dismissed him for his lack of respect for Israel’s sovereignty and his treatment of it as a vassal state. Certainly, Rabin would never have endorsed Indyk’s calls to divide Jerusalem and to make unilateral territorial concessions.

    Most of us continue to dream of peace. However, we recognize that with the current chaos and violence in the region, the likelihood of moving forward with a peace “partner” who sanctifies murder and engages in vicious incitement is almost a mirage. Yet to demonstrate our commitment to leave no stone unturned in our desire for peace, we have succumbed to pressure and unfortunately compromised the rights of terror victims and their families, by releasing hundreds of mass murderers as a “goodwill gesture” to sit at the negotiating table.

    Yet the extraordinary lengths to which we will go for the sake of peace will not move us forward if the US mediator is an American Jew, whose recent track record is indistinguishable from that of J Street in seeking to pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions. That such a politically jaundiced Jew is being proposed for this role is cause for grave concern.

    Prime Minister Netanyahu would be well advised to bite the bullet now and resist pressure to accept Indyk as mediator. Otherwise, we will once again be accused of intransigency and inflexibility, if not the cause of an upsurge in violence that President Abbas has already threatened should his demands go unmet.

  4. When i think of Martin Indyk, i think of Samuel Rosenman.
    Its scary how similar these appeasers are.

    http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2010-12-fdr-had-his-kissinger.php
    FDR had his Kissinger, too
    Henry Kissinger was not the first Jewish adviser to an American president who urged his boss to refrain from rescuing Jews.
    By Rafael Medoff
    Dec. 17, 2010

    Henry Kissinger was not the first Jewish adviser to an American president who urged his boss to refrain from rescuing Jews.

    According to transcripts of Oval Office tapes recently released by the Nixon Presidential Library, Secretary of State Kissinger told the president, in 1973, that even “if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern.” Kissinger’s remark is obviously apalling. But it’s equally disturbing to recall that when Soviet Jews were being shipped off to gas chambers – during the Holocaust – two prominent Jews gave then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt similar advice.

    More than 1.5 million Jews living in German-occupied portions of the Soviet Union, such as Ukraine, Lithuania and Latvia, were murdered by the Nazis. Many of them were lined up in front of huge pits and shot; many others were shipped to German death camps in Poland.
    But when Jewish organizations urged President Roosevelt to rescue Jews from the Nazis, FDR’s Jewish advisers gave him Kissinger-style advice.

    One of FDR’s top advisers and speechwriters was Samuel Rosenman, a leading member of the American Jewish Committee. Rosenman, a deeply assimilated Jew, was uncomfortable calling attention to Jewish concerns. After the 1938 Kristallnacht pogroms, he warned FDR that admitting German Jewish refugees to America would “create a Jewish problem in the U.S.” In 1943, when 400 rabbis marched to the White House to plead for a rescue effort, Rosenman counseled Roosevelt to snub “the medieval horde.” Rosenman also tried to undermine the 1943 campaign by rescue advocates and Treasury Department officials for creation of a government agency to save Jewish refugees. The agency, called the War Refugee Board, was eventually established despite his opposition.

    In 1944, the leaders of the board asked FDR to issue a statement threatening to prosecute anyone involved in persecuting Jews, and pledging to provide havens for Jewish refugees. Rosenman watered down the declaration, for fear that giving the Jews attention “would intensify anti-Semitism in the United States.” He deleted three of the six references to Jews, removed the offer to shelter refugees in America, and added three opening paragraphs about the Nazis’ mistreatment of “Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Dutch, Danes, French, Greeks, Russians, Chinese Filipinos – and many others.”

    Another prominent Jewish defender of FDR’s policy toward European Jewry was Congressman Sol Bloom, a Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Roosevelt administration chose him as a U.S. delegate to its sham refugee conference in Evian, France, in 1938, and to its equally farcical refugee conference in Bermuda five years later. Afterward, Bloom declared, “I as a Jew am perfectly satisfied with the results” – prompting one Jewish periodical to charge that Bloom had been “used as a stooge to impede Jewish protests against the nothing-doers of the Bermuda conference…”

    Bloom worked closely with the administration to block congressional resolutions supporting rescue and Jewish statehood. He even backed the State Department’s proposal to ban all public discussion of the Palestine issue for the duration of World War II.

    Jewish leaders were furious over Bloom’s actions. A document I recently discovered in the Central Zionist Archives, in Jerusalem, quotes Synagogue Council of America president Dr. Israel Goldstein as saying that “no Jew should ever occupy the position of chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”

    The problem was not that a Jew who reached such a position of power might turn against his people. The problem was that in those years, and even in more recent times, the only kind of Jew who could rise to such a powerful post in the first place was one who was willing to cast aside Jewish concerns. The only kind of Jew whom Roosevelt – or Nixon – would take into his inner circle was one who would tell him what he wanted to hear when it came to Jewish issues. Indeed, one State Department official privately referred to Sol Bloom as “easy to handle” – a way of saying he could be trusted never to make trouble on Jewish matters.

    On the newly released Nixon-Kissinger tapes, Kissinger remarks that the genocide of Soviet Jewry would be “maybe a humanitarian concern,” but certainly “not an American concern.” Samuel Rosenman and Sol Bloom likewise believed that humanitarian concerns such as rescuing Jews contradicted, or might be seen as contradicting, America’s true interests.

    Not everyone saw it that way. A few years ago, my Wyman Institute colleagues interviewed former senator and presidential nominee George McGovern about his experiences as a pilot who flew over Auschwitz in 1944 to bomb German oil plants nearby. McGovern said that if his commanders had told the pilots about the death camp and offered them the option of undertaking a bombing raid strictly for humanitarian (rather than military ) purposes, “whole crews would have volunteered.” They understood, he said, that the war against the Nazis was not just a military struggle, but also a fight for principles and values such as basic human decency and concern for the persecuted.

    Likewise in Kissinger’s time, there was strong public support for U.S. intervention on behalf of Soviet Jewry. The truth is that the American public has often been much more humanitarian-minded than some of its presidents – and their nervous Jewish advisers – ever recognized.

    .

  5. This Kapo Indyk was even trying to convince Israeli generals to give up the Jordan Valley.

    http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2014/01/indyk-orchestrating-campaign-of-former.html#links
    Indyk orchestrating campaign of former generals to ‘convince’ Israel it can give up Jordan Valley
    January 16, 2014

    It’s no coincidence that we’ve been seeing stories all week that one former IDF general after another is suddenly claiming that we can give up the Jordan Valley. Former US ambassador to Israel and ‘peace process’ babysitter Martin Indyk is orchestrating an organized campaign using former IDF generals to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu to give the Jordan Valley to the ‘Palestinians.’

    A report in Maariv Thursday said the the State Department had drafted many military officials who have worked with IDF officers, at various levels, in an orchestrated campaign to pressure the Israelis that there is no danger in surrendering the region in order to sign a deal with the Palestinian Authority.

    The report said that the effort was being orchestrated by former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. The plan is to build a lobby among Israeli security officials to support a major American push for Israel to agree to surrender the Jordan Valley. Between external pressure from the U.S. and internal pressure from the Israeli lobby and the media, Kerry hopes to be able to push Israel into making the decision, without which the Palestinian Authority will not agree to the peace framework he is pushing.

    That pressure campaign was allegedly behind Defense Minister Moshe ‘Boogie’ Yaalon calling US Secretary of State John FN Kerry an ‘obsessive messianic’ on Tuesday. Yaalon made his comments in a private setting and apparently did not expect them to be quoted in the media. Yedioth Aharonoth, which broke the story, is the second most Leftist newspaper in Israel after the Hebrew ‘Palestinian’ daily Haaretz.

    Meanwhile, military historian Aryeh Yitzhcaki argues that substantively, Indyk’s generals are wrong.

    “A storm of Arab unrest is raging to the east,” said Yitzchaki, as just one look at the situation in Iraq shows. Muslim radicals have made great advances there, and the country is on the verge of being turned into a terrorist state. In the past, Israel was concerned that a strong Iraqi army could join with Jordan and Syria in attacking Israel. That danger still exists – as does the danger that Iraq could export its radical revolution to those countries as well, he added.

    Rebels in Syria are working with their comrades in Iraq, with the aim to build a united Arab nation, called “A-Sham.” If they succeed, there is little chance Jordan could survive in its current form, and Israel will be facing on its eastern border a huge, and very hostile, Arab terror state, he said.

    “We are headed for a very ‘hot summer’ on our eastern border,” Yitzchaki said. “Those in charge of our defense must look at the situation from all angles, and understand that without a presence in the gateway to the Land of Israel, the Jordan Valley, Israel’s security will be compromised. Immediately to the east things look calm, but 100 kilometers beyond a monster is being built.”

    And perhaps this is the place to deal with the substance of Yaalon’s comments on Tuesday. After a detailed explanation of how the media work in Israel, why Yedioth published the story and how it got out of hand, JPost’s Herb Keinon writes that there are an awful lot of Israelis who agree with Yaalon (including yours truly).

    Through it all, what was lost was what Ya’alon said: that Kerry is obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian issue; that he approaches it like someone on a messianic mission; that the negotiations are being conducted not between Israel and the Palestinians, but by each side with the Americans, not a healthy way to negotiate; and that the security arrangements the US is recommending are simply not acceptable.

    Save the characterization of Kerry as being motivated by a messianic sentiment, and that he should just “take his Nobel Prize and leave us alone,” Ya’alon’s sentiments are neither illegitimate nor crazy. Nor are they his alone.

    Many have asked why Kerry seems to be focusing like a laser beam on the Israel-Palestinian situation, when there are so many other, even more pressing issues, in the region. As Fouad Ajami wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal: “The ground burns in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Borders are being contested, and militant Islamists have all but overwhelmed secular authorities.

    Yet America’s chief diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, was in the neighborhood this week, for the 10th time, on an expedition to Israel and the Palestinian territories.”

    Ya’alon’s comment that it was unwise to run the negotiations through the Americans, rather than directly between the sides, is not outlandish, nor is his claim that Israel seems to have made all the concessions up until this point. Is a pledge not to wage diplomatic war with Israel in diplomatic forums around the world – what the Palestinians “gave” to enter the talks – equal to Israel’s release of 104 convicted terrorists? And as to Ya’alon’s remark about the unacceptability of a US security plan for the day after an agreement is signed, is it not his job, as defense minister, to voice his reservations? His problem is that he voiced them in the wrong way, and in the wrong forum.

    But no one should be mistaken: What Ya’alon said rather inelegantly, many other Israelis – both inside and outside the corridors of power – are thinking.

    Read the whole thing. We all know why this is happening (which Keinon does not discuss): The Obama administration needs an ‘achievement,’ Israel is the Middle Eastern country most susceptible to American pressure, and if the parties negotiated directly they would never reach an agreement. And you thought an international conference was a bad idea?

    Over the last few weeks, my daily Talmud class has been learning about the scapegoat, the goat that was pushed off a cliff each year on Yom Kippur to atone for the Jewish people’s sins. I’m identifying more and more with the scapegoat these days.

  6. Guess Indyk just isn’t bashing Israel quite enough for the Guardian–who definitely is in the category of those who “lean” toward dishonest and distorted very 1-sided criticisms of Israel!