<h3 class="post-title entry-title"> Et tu, Kuwait? Hillary Clinton Takes Up Real Estate Law; And Obama Administration's Middle East Peace Campaign is Dead </h3> By Barry Rubin
Ok, first it was Saudi Arabia, then Jordan, now Kuwait’s emir visiting Washington has said that the Arab states don’t need to do anything to promote peace with Israel. In other words, they said “no” to President Obama’s request for gestures to help him build a peace process.
[You might remember Kuwait as that little country the United States went to war to free from Iraqi aggression. And so when the United States asks for Kuwait's help.... Ah, now you are starting to understand Middle East politics.]
According to them, Israel’s job is simply to withdraw from all the West Bank and east Jerusalem, accept an independent Palestinian state without conditions, let pretty much any Palestinian who wants to do so come live in Israel, and then there will be peace
The Palestinian Authority (PA) has taken the same stance. Indeed, despite just having received $200 million in U.|S. aid, training by American officers, and lavish diplomatic support from the Obama administration, the PA has told Arab states not to cooperate with the United States. It has said that they should reject any step toward normalization with Israel until a Palestinian state is established.
Let's review this amazing situation: Obama has asked Arab states to make some gesture toward Israel in exchange for an Israel freeze to construction on settlements. The goal here is to help the PA get a state. Obama and other administration officials have repeatedly said that there strategy is to restart the peace process through small steps. Yet the PA is subverting this policy
Still, not one word of criticism will escape Obama’s toward any of these leaders or countries. He will neither threaten nor take any action against them either. Of course, they knew this already which was one more incentive to act this way.
So let’s put it plainly and undeniably: Obama’s plan for dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict is dead. This may not be recognized by the media--though even pro-Obama outlets are starting to get the idea that something is deeply wrong with the policy--it won’t be admitted by officials, but it is clearly true. In a few months, this is what everyone will be saying and writing, so you might as well read it here right now.
Meanwhile, however, U.S., including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and British officials did find someone to criticize, and on ridiculous grounds: Israel. Clinton, for example, inveighed against an “Israeli” decision to evict Palestinians from two houses in east Jerusalem. The issue was presented as if it was some arbitrary political move. [For a detailed discussion of the case, see here.]
In fact, the matter in hand was an Israeli Supreme Court—an institution that has often ruled on the side of Palestinian plaintiffs—decision in a 30-year-old case. Individual Israeli citizens have been going through courts for years to regain their property seized by Jordan’s government after the 1948 war.
The court ruled that their ownership documents were legitimate, while those provided by the Palestinians were counterfeited. It was not hard to prove the latter point since it is on record that they were moved into the property by Jordan’s government without any ownership on their part. While there have been politically motivated battles or questionable claims over property, this is not one of them. There is certainly room for debate on this complex issue but not simplistic condemnation.
Think about the absurdity of a U.S. secretary of state publicly focusing on a routine property case involving two houses as if it were some massive human rights’ violation. The issue seemed to generate more passion on Clinton’s part (of course, political acting but nonetheless done with the force of America’s grandeur and power) than the deaths of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Darfur, or the Iranian regime’s repression, or the imprisonment and torture of peaceful dissidents in Syria. You can add to the list other such examples.
This is not the kind of behavior that Israelis can take seriously as that of a government whose advice—or demands—should be heeded. But then the same reaction is obviously true for Arab rulers, too.
Full Version: Et tu, Kuwait? Hillary Clinton Takes Up Real Estate Law; And Obama Administration's Middle East Peace Campaign is Dead
QUOTE (Gary Konecky @ Aug 4 2009, 04:09 PM) 
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"> Et tu, Kuwait? Hillary Clinton Takes Up Real Estate Law; And Obama Administration's Middle East Peace Campaign is Dead </h3> By Barry Rubin
Ok, first it was Saudi Arabia, then Jordan, now Kuwait’s emir visiting Washington has said that the Arab states don’t need to do anything to promote peace with Israel. In other words, they said “no” to President Obama’s request for gestures to help him build a peace process.
[You might remember Kuwait as that little country the United States went to war to free from Iraqi aggression. And so when the United States asks for Kuwait's help.... Ah, now you are starting to understand Middle East politics.]
According to them, Israel’s job is simply to withdraw from all the West Bank and east Jerusalem, accept an independent Palestinian state without conditions, let pretty much any Palestinian who wants to do so come live in Israel, and then there will be peace
The Palestinian Authority (PA) has taken the same stance. Indeed, despite just having received $200 million in U.|S. aid, training by American officers, and lavish diplomatic support from the Obama administration, the PA has told Arab states not to cooperate with the United States. It has said that they should reject any step toward normalization with Israel until a Palestinian state is established.
Let's review this amazing situation: Obama has asked Arab states to make some gesture toward Israel in exchange for an Israel freeze to construction on settlements. The goal here is to help the PA get a state. Obama and other administration officials have repeatedly said that there strategy is to restart the peace process through small steps. Yet the PA is subverting this policy
Still, not one word of criticism will escape Obama’s toward any of these leaders or countries. He will neither threaten nor take any action against them either. Of course, they knew this already which was one more incentive to act this way.
So let’s put it plainly and undeniably: Obama’s plan for dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict is dead. This may not be recognized by the media--though even pro-Obama outlets are starting to get the idea that something is deeply wrong with the policy--it won’t be admitted by officials, but it is clearly true. In a few months, this is what everyone will be saying and writing, so you might as well read it here right now.
Meanwhile, however, U.S., including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and British officials did find someone to criticize, and on ridiculous grounds: Israel. Clinton, for example, inveighed against an “Israeli” decision to evict Palestinians from two houses in east Jerusalem. The issue was presented as if it was some arbitrary political move. [For a detailed discussion of the case, see here.]
In fact, the matter in hand was an Israeli Supreme Court—an institution that has often ruled on the side of Palestinian plaintiffs—decision in a 30-year-old case. Individual Israeli citizens have been going through courts for years to regain their property seized by Jordan’s government after the 1948 war.
The court ruled that their ownership documents were legitimate, while those provided by the Palestinians were counterfeited. It was not hard to prove the latter point since it is on record that they were moved into the property by Jordan’s government without any ownership on their part. While there have been politically motivated battles or questionable claims over property, this is not one of them. There is certainly room for debate on this complex issue but not simplistic condemnation.
Think about the absurdity of a U.S. secretary of state publicly focusing on a routine property case involving two houses as if it were some massive human rights’ violation. The issue seemed to generate more passion on Clinton’s part (of course, political acting but nonetheless done with the force of America’s grandeur and power) than the deaths of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Darfur, or the Iranian regime’s repression, or the imprisonment and torture of peaceful dissidents in Syria. You can add to the list other such examples.
This is not the kind of behavior that Israelis can take seriously as that of a government whose advice—or demands—should be heeded. But then the same reaction is obviously true for Arab rulers, too.
Ok, first it was Saudi Arabia, then Jordan, now Kuwait’s emir visiting Washington has said that the Arab states don’t need to do anything to promote peace with Israel. In other words, they said “no” to President Obama’s request for gestures to help him build a peace process.
[You might remember Kuwait as that little country the United States went to war to free from Iraqi aggression. And so when the United States asks for Kuwait's help.... Ah, now you are starting to understand Middle East politics.]
According to them, Israel’s job is simply to withdraw from all the West Bank and east Jerusalem, accept an independent Palestinian state without conditions, let pretty much any Palestinian who wants to do so come live in Israel, and then there will be peace
The Palestinian Authority (PA) has taken the same stance. Indeed, despite just having received $200 million in U.|S. aid, training by American officers, and lavish diplomatic support from the Obama administration, the PA has told Arab states not to cooperate with the United States. It has said that they should reject any step toward normalization with Israel until a Palestinian state is established.
Let's review this amazing situation: Obama has asked Arab states to make some gesture toward Israel in exchange for an Israel freeze to construction on settlements. The goal here is to help the PA get a state. Obama and other administration officials have repeatedly said that there strategy is to restart the peace process through small steps. Yet the PA is subverting this policy
Still, not one word of criticism will escape Obama’s toward any of these leaders or countries. He will neither threaten nor take any action against them either. Of course, they knew this already which was one more incentive to act this way.
So let’s put it plainly and undeniably: Obama’s plan for dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict is dead. This may not be recognized by the media--though even pro-Obama outlets are starting to get the idea that something is deeply wrong with the policy--it won’t be admitted by officials, but it is clearly true. In a few months, this is what everyone will be saying and writing, so you might as well read it here right now.
Meanwhile, however, U.S., including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and British officials did find someone to criticize, and on ridiculous grounds: Israel. Clinton, for example, inveighed against an “Israeli” decision to evict Palestinians from two houses in east Jerusalem. The issue was presented as if it was some arbitrary political move. [For a detailed discussion of the case, see here.]
In fact, the matter in hand was an Israeli Supreme Court—an institution that has often ruled on the side of Palestinian plaintiffs—decision in a 30-year-old case. Individual Israeli citizens have been going through courts for years to regain their property seized by Jordan’s government after the 1948 war.
The court ruled that their ownership documents were legitimate, while those provided by the Palestinians were counterfeited. It was not hard to prove the latter point since it is on record that they were moved into the property by Jordan’s government without any ownership on their part. While there have been politically motivated battles or questionable claims over property, this is not one of them. There is certainly room for debate on this complex issue but not simplistic condemnation.
Think about the absurdity of a U.S. secretary of state publicly focusing on a routine property case involving two houses as if it were some massive human rights’ violation. The issue seemed to generate more passion on Clinton’s part (of course, political acting but nonetheless done with the force of America’s grandeur and power) than the deaths of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Darfur, or the Iranian regime’s repression, or the imprisonment and torture of peaceful dissidents in Syria. You can add to the list other such examples.
This is not the kind of behavior that Israelis can take seriously as that of a government whose advice—or demands—should be heeded. But then the same reaction is obviously true for Arab rulers, too.
It is obvious to me, and should be to others, that this discussion and the articles involved, has become an opportunistic political platform for the purposes of furthering an agenda of hatred toward Arabs and the Muslim world. It has never incorporated a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, God, the Bible, the Torah, or any other significant theosophy or spiritual concept. I considered it to be a vioation of the TOS as well as contrary to the spririt of "Doing that which is right", but I was informed by the moderating team this was not the case. I disagree with that position and have stepped down as moderator for this reason.
I will continue to aspire to a higher calling that demands disciplines to follow the two great commandments; to love God and to love my neighbor as myself. And to be sure, my neighbors are Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, Wiccans, atheists, white, red, yellow, black and many shades of brown, and of course those who follow a spiritual path that may not yet have a name. And if I am to love my neighbors as myself, how can I pass on that love if I have no love for myself as a devout follower of the God of my understanding? Or, how can I love God if I have naught but animosity for my neighbors? As I wrote to one member, one cannot even call the place of Satan by name without it being auto-censored. H e l l shall from here on be called heck. Type it and see how it is posted. But we are allowed to bash certain cultures, nations, and religions or their sects as evidenced by the spirit of these most recent posts. And, while I do not condone the violence that is perpetrated against others in the name of a God not of my understanding, I also do not condone the violence that is perpetrated and justified by those who retaliate beyond reason and do use the name of the God of my understanding. But, that is only my opinion, which evidently means nothing.....May the God of my understanding provide His justice upon all the nations of this earth, that only righteousness of heart and spirit will remain, and war will cease and peace will reign.....God's Peace....To`na Wanagi
Wow, Gary, that sure is...a vision. I tend to avoid long posts, just because after the first couple of sentences or so, they tend to drift off into repetitive la-la land. The only reason I read yours at all was because of To'na's comment.
I think more attention needs to be paid to why the US went into Kuwait at all, and why other nations who ask for US help are routinely ignored. Perhaps some illumination could be found there.
I think more attention needs to be paid to why the US went into Kuwait at all, and why other nations who ask for US help are routinely ignored. Perhaps some illumination could be found there.
QUOTE (Gary Konecky @ Aug 4 2009, 04:09 PM)
.
Meanwhile, however, U.S., including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and British officials did find someone to criticize, and on ridiculous grounds: Israel. Clinton, for example, inveighed against an “Israeli” decision to evict Palestinians from two houses in east Jerusalem. The issue was presented as if it was some arbitrary political move. [For a detailed discussion of the case, see here.]
Think about the absurdity of a U.S. secretary of state publicly focusing on a routine property case involving two houses as if it were some massive human rights’ violation. The issue seemed to generate more passion on Clinton’s part (of course, political acting but nonetheless done with the force of America’s grandeur and power) than the deaths of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Darfur, or the Iranian regime’s repression, or the imprisonment and torture of peaceful dissidents in Syria. You can add to the list other such examples.
Meanwhile, however, U.S., including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and British officials did find someone to criticize, and on ridiculous grounds: Israel. Clinton, for example, inveighed against an “Israeli” decision to evict Palestinians from two houses in east Jerusalem. The issue was presented as if it was some arbitrary political move. [For a detailed discussion of the case, see here.]
Think about the absurdity of a U.S. secretary of state publicly focusing on a routine property case involving two houses as if it were some massive human rights’ violation. The issue seemed to generate more passion on Clinton’s part (of course, political acting but nonetheless done with the force of America’s grandeur and power) than the deaths of thousands of civilians in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Darfur, or the Iranian regime’s repression, or the imprisonment and torture of peaceful dissidents in Syria. You can add to the list other such examples.
A little girl was walking down the beach, and as the surf receded form the sand she would rush over and pick up the starfish that was washed ashore gently tossing it back into the ocean. And as she walked along she continued to reach down and toss the starfish back into the sea.
A man in the distance was watching her and approached her. "Little girl, you know you cannot save all the starfish in the sea, it will make no difference", he said.
Reaching down to pick up another starfish and gently tossing it back into its home, she looked into the eyes of the man and firmly stated, "It made a difference to that one!"
The coldness of this statement diminishes the sacredness of life and the right to live free and without the threat of insecurity. Perspectives change when the shoe is on the other foot. I hope no one ever has to experience the scenario you have just minimalized. It can, and does, happen in our own country.....God's Peace....To`na Wanagi
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.