Please Don’t Kill the Messenger

1:09 am in capital of israel, carolyn kaster, Foreign Affairs, Headlines, International News, israel jerusalem, james carney, New York Times, political essayist, political persuasion, white house press by Jerrold Sobel

by Jerrold L. Sobel
Since creating the Israeli Advocate in 2008 I’ve never ceased to marvel and be intrigued at the responses I receive from my articles and that of my contributors.  Dependent upon the political persuasion, mood, or a particular reader’s state of mind at the time the article is read, the variance of response runs the gamut from:  “Take me off your ******g mailing list” to “absolutely brilliant,” and shades in between.
As a political essayist, no different than the New York Times,  I too have a point of view, but unlike the Times mine is not masked as news.  However, when direct quotes are cited accompanied by a referenced URLs from whence they came, their validity can no longer be a matter of conjecture.  So when a disgruntled reader writes  “you’re full of scrap,” or something more inventive, I have a chuckle and reply:  “open your mind and follow the corroborating URL.”  Point in hand:
On Thursday, July 26, White House Press Secretary James Carney was asked by a reporter which of the following two cities is recognized by the U.S, as the official capital of Israel: Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?  After an inordinate pause, Carney sheepishly replied, “I haven’t had that question in a while.”  He then went on to say: “Our position has not changed, you know our position.”  For the record, aren’t the American people entitled to know which city the United States considers the capital of its strongest ally in the Middle East?

Jay Carney (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Carney, obviously uncomfortable, immediately sought out a different query but was then confronted by another reporter asking the same question.  Instead of just giving the Administration’s position on this issue, Carney obfuscated.  Recognizing this embarrassing incident would soon grow legs in the media, the Press Office later came out with the following statement:

“The status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.”

White House Press Secretary Carney Unable to Utter the Name Jerusalem
Issue, what issue?  On October 23, 1995 the 104th Congress passed into law, the Jerusalem Embassy Act.  The law was passed for the expressed purpose of funding the relocation of the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to  Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999.  Of equal importance, the act specifically calls for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city.  In all fairness, along with Obama, neither Clinton or Bush, claiming congressional infringement, implemented the law either.  However, inferring recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, all State Department documents during the prior administrations included the term Jerusalem, Israel.  Further on you’ll see, that’s no longer the case.

Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

You may agree or disagree with Carney’s befuddled response or the affirmation his bosses made later on.  But one thing we all can agree upon, this Administration does  recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  It’s now an “issue” and it’s also public record.  Carney said it, and if he left any doubt, the State Department reiterated it in no uncertain terms:
“We continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue and others in a way that is just and fair, and respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.”  
This is not exactly behavior one would expect from an Administration professing “unshakable friendship” with Israel.  What could be more basic than recognizing the capital of your professed “close friend?”  But on the other hand maybe it’s not so bizarre after all?
In November 2011, the Administration went to the Supreme Court to defend its refusal to recognize Jerusalem, Israel on the passports of Americans born in Israel.  In preparation for the case, the State Department hurriedly removed all the captions on a White House photo gallery of Vice President Biden in the city, changing “Jerusalem, Israel” to “Jerusalem.” The optics of methodically erasing the word “Israel” from the White House webpage caused a predictable uproar.

Obama Re-Writes History on Bush and Jerusalem

http://johnmalcolm.me/2012/05/20/obama-re-writes-history-on-bush-and-jerusalem/

 

Now let’s go back to May 19, 2011 and President Obama’s speech at the State Department cajoling Israel to re-initiate “peace talks”  (my emphasis) by first returning to the 1967 borders.  As stated in a May 19, 2011 article in CNN Politics entitled, Obama Called for Israel’s Return to pre-1967 Borders.

Since the article was written by CNN correspondent Tom Cohen it can’t be shrugged off as some right wing propaganda.  His first paragraph says it all:

“President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.”

He then goes on to quote the president directly:

“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine,”

He further stated:

“We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” 

These are Obama’s own words, not mine.  This once again is public record, as he’s oft to do, he can not claim them misconstrued.  Alluding to what Abba Eban referred to as the “Auschwitz borders,” the President had set the default for renewed negotiations, not the Palestinians.  Is Palestinian intransigence any wonder?  Why should their position be any less than what the President of the United States had already negotiated for them?

Obama Calls For Israel’s Return to pre-67 Borders

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS

Not to be out done, on the same date, the New York Times printed an article entitled, “Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal.”

Obama Sees ’67 Borders as Starting Point for Peace Deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html?pagewanted=all

 

Here again, the first paragraph says it all:

WASHINGTON — “President Obama, seeking to capture a moment of epochal change in the Arab world, began a new effort on Thursday to break the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, setting out a new starting point for negotiations on the region’s most intractable problem.”

So what’s wrong with that?  For those who have greater fealty to the President and his party over the security of Israel, absolutely nothing.  For others truly concerned with Israel’s security, you have to scratch your head and ask the following questions:

  • “Seeking to capture a moment of epochal change in the Arab world.”  The Times  correctly ascertained what he was and is trying to do but where in that statement is there any mention of Israel?  Since when had the Israeli government given Obama a mandate to create epochal change in the Arab world at Israel’s expense?
  • Why is Obama, time and time again taking the Palestinian point of view antecedent negotiations?
  • Doesn’t this President realize that the pre’67 lines were never recognized borders but cease fire lines following Israel’s victory in 1948?
  • Why would Obama ask Israel, after being incessantly attacked prior and subsequent to 1967, make herself once again vulnerable to the same untenable demarcation lines; allowing her only 9 miles from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea?
  • Why would Obama give such a speech hours ahead of meeting Prime Minister Netanyahu who was on a plane, in the air, and preparing to meet with him the next morning?
  • Why has the President placed such emphasis on Israeli settlements (my emphasis) as an impediment to reigniting peace talks when the Palestinians?  Prior to his intervention they never did.
  • With ongoing events in Syria; increased threats of Hezbollah in Lebanon;  the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, North Africa, and most likely soon in Jordan;  the Iranian cabal’s interminable quest for nuclear weapons; and the ceaseless instability of the region, is Obama correct in pressuring the only true democracy in the Middle East to make concessions of land?
  • Why should Israel be cajoled into negotiations with an avowed enemy which seeks acquiescence not peace, offers no quid pro quo, and is adamant in non recognition of Israel as a Jewish state?
  • Isn’t it fair to expect an ally and friend to insist upon recognition as a prerequisite to any discussion of “settlements” or any other potential trump cards Israel might use in future negotiations?  Evidently out of design or naiveté, Obama doesn’t think so.

 

These are just some questions that voters, particularly “progressive” Jewish voters should be asking themselves in the weeks and months prior to November.

For people interested in Islam, Israel, and the history of the Middle East conflict, my blog jewishcrusader.blogspot.com. is up and running.  It’s loaded with articles, videos, and documents from many sources.

Comments Off