November 10, 2011, 4:38 PM
| Comments (27) | | |
 |
| |  |
The slurs against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu voiced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama after last week's G20 summit were revealing as well as repugnant.
Thinking no one other than Obama could hear him, Sarkozy attacked Netanyahu, saying, "I can't stand to see him anymore, he's a liar."
Obama responded by whining, "You're fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day."
These statements are interesting both for what they say about the two presidents' characters and for what they say about the way that Israel is perceived by the West more generally.
To understand why this is the case it is necessary to first ask, when has Netanyahu ever lied to Sarkozy and Obama? This week the UN International Atomic Energy Agency's report about Iran's nuclear weapons program made clear that Israel - Netanyahu included - has been telling the truth about Iran and its nuclear ambitions all along. In contrast, world leaders have been lying and burying their heads in the sand.
Since Iran's nuclear weapons program was first revealed to the public in 2004, Israel has provided in-depth intelligence information proving Iran's malign intentions to the likes of Sarkozy, Obama and the UN. And for seven years, the US government - Obama included - has claimed that it lacked definitive proof of Iran's intentions.
Obama wasted the first two years of his administration attempting to charm the Iranians out of their nuclear weapons program. He stubbornly ignored the piles of evidence presented to him by Israel that Iran was not interested in cutting a deal.
Perhaps Obama was relying on the US's 2007 National Intelligence Estimate about Iran's nuclear weapons program. As Israel said at the time, and as this week's IAEA report proves, it was the NIE - which claimed that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 - not Israel that deliberately lied about the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program. It was the US intelligence community that purposely deceived the American government and people about the gravest immediate threat to US national security.
Israel, including Netanyahu, was telling the truth.
So if Netanyahu never lied about Iran, what might these two major world leaders think he lies about? Why don't they want to speak with him anymore? Could it be they don't like the way he is managing their beloved "peace process" with the Palestinians? The fact is that the only times Netanyahu has spoken less than truthfully about the Palestinians were those instances when he sought to appease the likes of Obama and Sarkozy. Only when Netanyahu embraced the false claims of the likes of Obama and Sarkozy that it is possible to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians based on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River could it be said that he made false statements.
Because the truth is that Israel never had a chance of achieving peace with the Palestinians.
And the reason this has always been the case has nothing to do with Netanyahu or Israel.
THERE WAS never any chance for peace because the Palestinians have no interest in making peace with Israel. As the West's favorite Palestinian "moderate," Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Egypt's Dream TV on October 23, "I've said it before and I'll say it again. I will never recognize the 'Jewishness' of the State [of Israel] or a 'Jewish state.'" That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.
Acknowledging this, on Tuesday Netanyahu reportedly told his colleagues that through their recent actions, the Palestinians have abrogated the foundations of the peace process. As he put it, "By boycotting negotiations and by going instead to the United Nations [to achieve independent statehood], they [the Palestinians] have reneged on a central tenet of Oslo."
That tenet, which formed the basis of the Oslo peace process, was "land for peace."
As Netanyahu explained, Israel gave up land within the framework of the Oslo Accords. In exchange the Palestinians committed to resolve their conflict with Israel through direct negotiations that would lead to peace. Their UN gambit, like Abbas's statement to Egyptian television, shows that the Palestinians - not Israel - have been lying all along. They pocketed Israel's territorial concessions and refused to make peace.
So why do the likes of Sarkozy and Obama hate Netanyahu? Why is he "a liar?" Why don't they pour out their venom on Abbas, who really does lie to them on a regular basis? The answer is because they prefer to blame Israel rather than acknowledge that their positive assessments of the Palestinians are nothing more than fantasy.
And they are not alone. The Western preference for fantasy over reality was given explicit expression by former US president Bill Clinton in September.
In an ugly diatribe against Netanyahu at his Clinton Global Initiative Conference, Clinton insisted that the PA under Abbas was "pro-peace" and that the only real obstacle to a deal was Netanyahu. Ironically, at the same time Clinton was attacking Israel's leader for killing the peace process, Abbas was at the UN asking the Security Council to accept as a full member an independent Palestine in a de facto state of war with Israel.
So, too, while Clinton was blaming him for the failure of the peace process, Netanyahu was at the UN using his speech to the General Assembly to issue yet another plea to Abbas to renew peace talks with Israel.
Clinton didn't exhaust his ammunition on Netanyahu. He saved plenty for the Israeli people as well. Ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Palestinians freely elected Hamas to lead them, Clinton provided his audience with a bigoted taxonomy of the Israeli public through which he differentiated the good, "pro-peace Israelis," from the bad, "anti-peace," Israelis.
As he put it, "The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazis of longstanding, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel's founding."
As for the bad Israelis, in the view of the former president, "The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious who believe they're supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they're not encumbered by the historical record."
BY RANKING the worthiness of Israel's citizens in accordance with whether or not they agree with Clinton and his friends, Clinton was acting in line with what has emerged as standard operating practice of Israel's "friends" in places such as Europe and the US. Like Clinton, they too think it is their right to pick and choose which Israelis are acceptable and which are unworthy.
On Wednesday we saw this practice put into play by British Ambassador Matthew Gould. This week the Knesset began deliberations on a bill that would prohibit foreign governments and international agencies from contributing more than NIS 20,000 to Israeli nongovernmental organizations. The bill was introduced by Likud MK Ofir Okunis with Netanyahu's support.
According to Haaretz, Gould issued a thinly veiled threat to Okunis related to the bill. Gould reportedly said that if the bill is passed, it would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.
Last month, Makor Rishon published a British government document titled, "NGOs in the Middle East Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office."
The document showed that in 2010, outside of Iraq, the British government gave a total of £100,000 to pro-democracy NGOs throughout the Arab world.
In contrast to Britain's miserly attitude towards Arab civil society organizations, Her Majesty's Government gave more than £600,000 pounds to farleftist Israeli NGOs. These Israeli groups included the Economic Cooperation Foundation, Yesh Din, Peace Now, Ir Amim and Gisha. All of these groups are far beyond Israeli mainstream opinion.
All seek to use international pressure on Israel to force the government to adopt policies rejected by the vast majority of the public.
So for every pound Britain forked out to cultivate democracy in 20 Arab non-democracies, it spent £6 to undermine democracy in Israel - the region's only democracy.
And the British couldn't be more pleased with the return on their investment. Speaking to Parliament last year, Britain's Minister of Middle East Affairs Alistair Burt said the money has successfully changed Israeli policies. As he put it, "Since we began supporting these programs some significant changes have been made in the Israeli justice system, both civilian and military, and in the decisions they make. They have also raised a significant debate about these matters and we believe these activities will strengthen democracy in Israel."
In other words, as far as Britain is concerned, "strengthening democracy" in Israel means tipping the scales in favor of marginal groups with no noticeable domestic constituency.
These shockingly hostile statements echo one made by then-presidential candidate Obama from the campaign trail in February 2008. At the time Obama said, "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a[n] unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."
Scarcely a day goes by when some foreign leader, commentator or activist doesn't say that being pro-Israel doesn't mean being pro-Israeli government. And like Obama's campaign-trail statement, Clinton's diatribe, Sarkozy and Obama's vile gossip about Netanyahu and Britain's self-congratulatory declarations and veiled threats, those who make a distinction between the Israeli people and the Israeli government ignore two important facts.
First, Israel is a democracy. Its governments reflect the will of the Israeli people and therefore, are inseparable from the people. If you harbor contempt for Israel's elected leaders, then by definition you harbor contempt for the Israeli public.
And this makes you anti-Israel.
The second fact these statements ignore is that Israel is the US's and Europe's stalwart ally. If Sarkozy and Obama had said what they said about Netanyahu in a conversation about German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or if Netanyahu had made similar statements about Obama or Sarkozy, the revelation of the statements would have sparked international outcries of indignation and been roundly condemned from all quarters.
And this brings us to the other troubling aspect of Sarkozy and Obama's nasty exchange about Netanyahu. Their views reflect a wider anti-Israel climate.
Outside the Jewish world, Sarkozy's and Obama's hateful, false statements about their ally provoked no outrage. Indeed, it took the media three days to even report their conversation. This indicates that Obama and Sarkozy aren't alone in holding Israel to a double standard. They aren't the only ones blaming Israel for the Palestinians' bad behavior.
The Western media also holds Israel to a separate standard. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel and its elected leaders for the Palestinians' duplicity. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel for failing to make their peace fantasies come true.
And that is the real message of the Obama- Sarkozy exchange last week. Through it we learn that blaming the Jews and the Jewish state for their enemies' behavior is what passes for polite conversation among Western elites today.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
| Comments (27) | | |
|
Caroline, given that you are speaking of Merkel too: by implication, Merkel has said what Sarkozy has said before him, and if I have counted well and captured all her statements of this kind, she said it two times during this "Christian year." She said that she believed that Netanyahu does not really want peace, meaning: the Jews don't. And she made this confidential statement to the Germans knowing that her microphone was open.
To answer the question of "why?" is simple, if not also deeply troubling: He/they hate Jews.
As always, thanks for telling like it is, Caroline. Shocking, the extent to which "mainstream" journalists will run to offer apologetics of BHO's concession and outright acquiescence to Euro anti-Semitism, in this case, an unrestrained expression of hatred toward a Jewish leader. Dig this one from CNN: "Yes, Mr. President, Israelis can be frustrating." Just as easily could have been "Jews are annoying." But since it's from the pen of a court Jew, of course such invective is acceptable (just imagine a CNN reporter or analyst writing such generalizations about any other ethnic or national group).
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/10/opinion/miller-obama-netanyahu-open-mike/index.html (see down toward bottom of article)
"the way that Israel is perceived by the West" -It's better to be alive than hypocritically mourned posthumously. Czechoslovakia had been roundly and consistently condemned and abused by most of that same West until, in 1938, she was forced by Britain and France to accept all Hitler's demands. What that brought upon the West, Britain and France included, we all know.
Well finally we are slowly discovering that our so-called " friends of Israel " are just lying, smearing Israel and the jews faithful to their heritage.So good for Sarkoozy who in front of the Knesset had the khutzpa to say that " in case Israel is attacked he won't stay with crosses arms "...So good for Obama that pledged many times to be for the " security of Israel". Now it is thanks to their slandering of Netanyahu to extract the true meaning of those two ugly characters: Sarkozy & Obama will do everything they can to ALLOW IRAN TO ATTACK ISRAEL WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Let's be clear , in Obama twisted vocabulary the " security of Israel " is absolute once Israel has been destroyed or burnt or definitively maimed.As a corpse is secure once the living person who he was as passed from life to death.Mr Obama is the forensic expert on Israel, Mr Sarkozy is the would-be doctor who would diagnose the final agony of Israel. With friends like that, we have to act and to act decisively.
Apparently US Arizona Senator, former Republican US Presidential candidate John Mc Cain wanted everyone to know that:
Sen. McCain calls on Obama to appoint Bill Clinton as Mideast envoy
(Reuters).Republican Senator John McCain has some advice for President Barack Obama to help energize stalled Middle East peacemaking: Put former President Bill Clinton in charge.
Bill Clinton, is always "the smartest guy in the room" and so would he be in a roomful of Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, McCain told the Reuters Washington summit on Tuesday.
"I believe that the president should call in the one person who has a chance of negotiating, having both sides negotiate with good faith, and that's one Bill Clinton."
"I would ask him to take on the role of the president's special envoy, mediator, potentate, whatever you want to call it because he's the person that came the closest and he's the person that has the most credibility."
"He (Clinton) has the respect, he has the clout and the parties would fear upsetting him...And he knows the issue better than anybody."
"I've watched Tony Blair try to make progress," McCain said. But Blair, in seeking to broker new talks, has run into some of the same problems that bedeviled Mitchell's efforts.
Posted by jacob at 7:11 AM
Funny how Clinton didn't reckon on the Sephardi/Mizrahi population as either "good Israelis" or "bad Israelis" despite their being approximately 50% of the Israeli population. I wonder if his ignoring them was because by recognising their existance and ancient ties to the region he would also have to acknowledge their 1400 year experience of Muslim Jew-hatred! And that would really challenge "leaders" like him, Obama and Sarkozy who are the ones who really do come to the matter "unencumbered by the historical record."
Caroline, Obama and Sarkozy's overheard statements are proof positive of the low esteem in which they hold their "ally" Israel. Can we say there is some jealousy involved? Once again "those Jews" were correct in their assessment of Iran's nuclear power. Once again we have shown that despite actions of good faith that Palestinian peace only comes at a most horrific price, death of the Jewish state. France has become almost completely Islamized so Sarkozy's actions, while vile, do not surprise me. Obama has certainly been indicating by word and deed that he is no fan of Israel. Yet, there are still Jews who are willing to jump on his bandwagon which makes no sense at all in view of all the recent revelations. What do we do now. HaShem Yerachem. Shabbat shalom.
The big question no one is asking after all the treachery and duplicity of the West against Israel in collusion with the Islamists who openly call for Israel's extermination is why Israels leaders are still playing the game of 'Erase Israel by the Peace Process ?
Maybe if Israel understood that the peace,Clinton,Bush,Obama,Sarkozy,Merkel,Cameron were talking about was the peace of Israel no longer existing
Maybe the weakened by the peace,fearful,appeasing and capitulating leadership in Jerusalem might take a different stand,but then maybe not ?
What if instead of giving in to the Two State Final Solution Netanyahu had firmly held his ground ?
I dare say he would be getting much more respect than he is getting now.
The old Israel took care of Iraq's Osirak reactor before it became a threat.
The new Israel begs and crawls to the corrupt,greedy,perverted nations for help and still thinks sanctions will do anything to fix the problem with Iran.
Everyone including China can see how easy it is to walk on the backs of the passive,begging,fearful,faithless ghetto Jews.
They'll just retreat and surrender some more as they have proven time and time again.
Ir is evident how successful the US led Road Map has weakened Israel and turned it into a servile, no longer sovereign state waiting for 'green lights' from her pimp of no peace where the inept,lap dog leadership of Netanyahu and Barak can't even defeat Hamas or Hezbollah.
"And that is the real message of the Obama- Sarkozy exchange last week. Through it we learn that blaming the Jews and the Jewish state for their enemies' behavior is what passes for polite conversation among Western elites today."
A Jewish pro-Israel U.S. college student endures the same treatment. I personally know a political science department that regularly blames a Jewish pro-Israel college student for the mistreatment that Jewish student receives.
Caroline, bottom line is the two so called leaders Sarkozy and Obama are two turkeys, both anti-Semites and are no friend of Israel.
Again, although a majority of American supports Israel the government does not reflect the will of the people.
You are right the Palestinians are not interested in peace. They are no more than an anti-Semitic tool used by the Muslim world in an attempt to destroy Israel.
Israel needs to continue to build communities throughout all of Israel (from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean, including Judea , Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai and of course the Golan Heights) and take complete control of Jerusalem the capital of Israel, the Holy Land G-d will the Jewish people.
Israel is our only true friend and trusted ally in the Middle East. In spite of the aid we provide to the Arab world, they dislike us and would not hesitate to destroy us if they could.
The US should first of all stop all financial and military aid to any government and or organization engaged in and the support of terrorism against Israel.
The next step the US needs to pull out of the UN, this nothing more than cesspool of bad governments.
Move the UN headquarters in Siberia someplace and let the bad actors enjoy the night life there, they so well deserve.
So Bill Clinton thinks "(t)he most anti-peace are the ultra-religious who believe they're supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists." Aren't these the kind of people who cling to their guns and/or bibles?
Correction:
Israel, the Holy Land G-d willed the Jewish people.
As frustrating as it is to see the non-Jewish (and much of the Jewish) world at Israel's throat, it is also disturbing to see wise and articulate pundits such as Caroline not really getting it. The sad fact is that whatever fantasies Sarkozy and Ovomit engage in, they are not "peace fantasies." What they have is run-of-the-mill garden-variety anti-Semitic, get-rid-of-the-kikes fantasies. They obviously don't care about whether or how the Jews live; we always have to take care of ourselves and will surely have to when the next shoe drops (e.g., Iran). And they just as obviously don't care about whether or how the A-rabs fare, since the entire world utters a giant "ho-hum" toward the expected Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities that hardly merit ink anymore. Since the A-rabs give the world almost nothing but tsouris and haven't the collective merit of a small ant colony, the only thing the world finds them good for is their assumption of the latest iteration of Jew-killers. Europe was disappointed it didn't get Hitler (y'mach sh'mo) to complete the job; Sarkozy and Obummer are similarly disappointed that the A-rabs are failing in that task. It ain't rocket science, Caroline. In other words, far from being interested in "peace" between the parties, the likes of Sarkozy and Obamao and the Left are frustrated because Israel isn't cooperating with sufficient alacrity in her own demise. And the proof of the pudding is simply that there could be no discernible benefit for the world in a Palestinian state. So why mourn the lack of "peace"? And especially in view of the incredible wealth that Israel brings to the table, in every department. The common-sense bet would be on Israel. The only reason the likes of Sarkozy and Obamadinejad don't place theirs right is that it's more important to them (subconsciously, I hope) that the Jews stop clinging so stubbornly to existence. Fortunately, we have a Torah written by an Author who runs the whole show and has determined that the likes of Sarkozy and Obamination will be footnotes in history, max. We've seen this movie SO many times before; we're gonna KEEP seeing it until the Jewish People wises up and refuses to pointlessly, fatally engage in each new round with each new villain as if there is a different point, a different meaning, and a different ending.
"BY RANKING the worthiness of Israel's citizens in accordance with whether or not they agree with Clinton and his friends, Clinton was acting in line with what has emerged as standard operating practice of Israel's "friends" in places such as Europe and the US. Like Clinton, they too think it is their right to pick and choose which Israelis are acceptable and which are unworthy"....This is a tactic they use here in the USA too...They Rank Blacks by their "blackness" according to the racist kkk democrats...meanwhile, Obama a 1/2 black from Kenya via Indonesian Madrassas, whos parents only one was a citizen is "very black" and Herman Cain, a man who's family were slaves, and who's family were freed and rose from the ashes to become successful, and thankful for what they now have after fighting for it..the only thing Obama fought for was a Turkey leg at thanksgiving
For the record, I read CG articles religiously but here, I'm not quite sure why you think you know why Netanyahu was called a liar. Maybe in private negotiations with the presidents he lies to them, like most Israeli politicians and they were discussing that. Granted every politician, ESPECIALLY Obama and Sarkozy, lie, but maybe Netanyahu had his way of lying also. I don't think what they said was so evil because maybe they were fed up with a certain promise he made or something and didn't follow through. Who's to know.
@mbfoxg What DO we know? We know that Obama and Sarkozy are not advocates for Israel (and, for the record, Obama does not speak for the majority of Americans). Anything that appears otherwise, is just a show to keep the votes of (in the case of Obama) American jews. Given that we know this (there is no question), to extrapolate that 1mm to a dislike, by these failed leaders, of Netanyahu, does not seem like much of a stretch.
Dear Caroline,
Another great job of reporting. Obama and Sarkozy, disdain for Israel and Jews, is not really new. But to hear them make comments like this, just affirms what we have known all along. One thing I notice when the left accuses someone of lying, the people they accuse are usually telling the truth. That is why Netanyahu is not included in there club. What bothers me so often is, the left always lies, and everyone thinks its ok or expected, no investigation ever is made. But someone with a reputation of telling the truth, any accusation even if its false must be investigated to the ruinnation of that person. Israel must take care of its Jewish population, that means housing, protection, and quit giving money to people bent on their destruction. I know the government and people of Israel hope the world will see their plight and help them. Its not going to happen. There are gentiles like me who love Israel, and want the people to build and live in their land, like they own it, which they do. God bless you Caroline, and Latma too. Ivan
Thought experiment to "solve the Israel problem" Take a relatively worthless piece of land on a major interstate in Texas, and move the Jewish state there. They would leave behind the one of the most prosperous countries in the region, and start over. Predictions:
1) The infrastructure they leave behind would rot, and the land area would descend into poverty equivalent to Gaza
2) In 25 years that part of Texas would be a high tech hot spot and would be among the more prosperous areas in the US
3) There would be attacks on that part of Texas, on some hate pretext because the despots in the Middle East would still need a great Satan (though there would be some long rationalized explanation for punishing the Jews).
G-d willing, in January 2013 President Romney will support Israel unconditionally, as candidate Romney has promised. let's hope Israel--and America--can hold on that long...
Caroline, is it true that Likud is the manifestation of Irgun, the notorious terrorist organization killing oh-so-many innocent people? Why then is it allowed to have & stockpile NUCLEAR ARSENAL, CAROLINE??
Caroline, do you agree that if a rapist rapes a virgin, he should pay 50 shekels only? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). I know you will object, Caroline, but then it is the SAME TORAH saying the so-called promised land. Are you being so choosy/hypocritical by choosing what's right and what's not in the Torah, Caroline?
Btw, do you know Bulan of Khazar, Caroline? And How do you know that your great-great ancestors were the same people marching with Moses when he split the red sea - and not just some Russian peasants?
And Caroline, what makes Chinese Jews, Ugandan Jews more Semitic than any Palestinians, so that the Chinese, Ugandan Jews are urged to "return" to Israel, while the Palestinians are having zero right to return??
I read the article plus all comments to see if anyone thought what I think--and they didn't. There is always an open mike incident at the G20. I think they plan it. This time, the comments by Sarkozy and Obama were so inane, I think they were calculated to give both the chance to disassociate from and deniability for anything Netanyahu has to do to deal with Iran. Last week it was reported the US approval of a bombing mission was "off the table". Of the three, Netanyahu is the only one who knows what it is like to fight for survival. Sarkozy and Obama know something has to be done. Sarkozy is a realist, while Obama has positioned himself with the Left to the point he has to play both sides. No one at that level personally cares; Obama wants to be reelected. Netanyahu on the other hand has to simultaneously juggle the relationship with whoever is the US president and daily threats against Isreal. The Carter-Clinton lovefests with all things muslim and the promotion of the extreme Left within Isreal occurred while there was still the fantasy in the US that the Arab-Isreali conflict could be "solved". If there is any benefit to the degeneration and collapse of ME dictators,the rise of extreme islam
..(con't)..the rise of extreme islam, and the encroachment of islam in Western countries, is that it is more directly waking up the West to the evil and intransigence of the threat to democracy by islam. What simply telling them and carnage on the screen for decades did not do, direct acts in towns across America is doing.
I do not think Obama and Sarkozy hate Jews, even though their actions can ultimately be called antisemitic; this can also be applied to the many left-wing Jews who believe that Israel is to blame. Antisemitism has undergone a shift. This is an interesting discussion point for another time but I write this only because reverting to calling these people "antisemitic" is counterproductive today.
Regarding the conversation, from early reports it seems that Obama had asked Sarkozy why France had voted "YES" on UNESCO without informing the USA first. Prior, France had joined the USA in lobbbying against the vote and their last minute switch makes them (in effect) back-stabbers. When Sarkozy called Netanyahu a liar it followed the earlier exchange and might well have been Sarkozy's way of deflecting an uncomfortable conversation. If so, it means Netanyahu (Israel) is the scapegoat.
It takes two to make peace
It only takes one to make war
I am an American and I was horrified at the remarks by Obama and Sarkozy against Bibi. They do not speak for me.