Did Condi Go on a Rampage?
Summary ... In order to accomplish US goals, Condoleezza Rice brutally forced Israel to accept the terms of an agreement regulating border crossings in and out of Gaza, a place which is used by terrorists to enter Israel for the purpose of murdering innocent Jewish citizens. Like a broom sweeping away cobwebs, Rice challenged the basic assumptions which in recent years have guided Israeli foreign policy.
Last week, the local press announced that after weeks of inconclusive negotiations an agreement was reached within the framework of the Roadmap regulating the border crossings in and out of Gaza. At the same time, it became clear that this agreement deprived Israel of means of preventing the passage of terrorists and arms into Gaza. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to Jerusalem in order to move these negotiations forward, and the newspapers reported that she brutally forced Israel to accept the terms of this agreement. It seems that the staff at the hotel where the negotiations took place heard Condoleezza Rice screaming at Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz upon whom she vented her anger on a previous visit. The media have devoted attention to two main facts: a confrontation took place and Israel's sovereignty and its ability to defend itself have been compromised.
Although, the United States has continuously applied pressure on Israel for various reasons, last week's drama reflected unusual brutality and forcefulness. It was shocking and unforeseen, because no state would have knowingly placed itself in the situation Israel faced last week. While we will have to wait for further details, we may learn something by examining the long-term lines of American-Israeli bilateral relations as understood by the Sharon government. While one should not generalize on the basis of a single event, what happened is of such importance that we must try to understand it.
This brutal confrontation took place despite the fact that one of the priorities of Israeli foreign policy has been to build cordial relations with the American administration. At the same time, some Israeli policy makers understood that with Yasir Arafat's proven unsuitability as a negotiating partner, the Americans would appreciate the need for a measure of initiative regarding the establishment of borders and keeping settlement blocs. It followed that the Sharon government hoped that disengagement from Gaza would earn special consideration for Israel, in view of the fact that the Palestinian Authority failed to demonstrate positive cooperation in fighting terror and ending incitement. On several occasions, the Americans denied the existence of this type of understanding, but the Sharon government has persistently maintained that indeed there is a special American appreciation for Israel's needs.
The formulation of this policy dates back to Sharon's address to the Herzliya Conference of December 4, 2002 and more recently to the famous interview of his advisor, Dov Weisglass, which ran in Ha'aretz of October 8, 2004. Here, Weisglass with great confidence and buoyant optimism explained that after Israel's seizure on 4 January 2002 of the Karin A (a ship smuggling illegal weapons to the PA), and the documentation of Arafat's financial links to terrorist organizations, the Americans no longer wanted to have anything to do with the Rais. "From that moment he was as good as dead." He further declared that Israel had adopted the principle that the eradication of terrorism would have to precede the start of a political process, and that in the meantime the peace process would be stopped in place, as if it were preserved in formaldehyde. "We received a no-one-to-talk-to certificate. That certificate says: (1) There is no one to talk to. (2)As long as there is no one to talk to, the geographic status quo remains intact. (3)The certificate will be revoked only when this-and-this happens when Palestine becomes Finland. (4) See you then, and Shalom."
There is every reason to believe that the Sharon government endeavored in good faith to protect Israel's interests according to its best understanding of the situation, but evidently something went wrong.
There could have been a change of American policy, or Prime Minister Sharon may have overestimated the friendship of the American administration. What is clear from last week's ugly and heavy-handed episode is that the U.S. Secretary of State did not show much special appreciation for Israel's critical needs or respect for its sovereignty. Like a broom sweeping away cobwebs, Condoleeza Rice challenged the basic assumptions which in recent years have guided Israeli foreign policy.
[ Published: November 26, 2005 ]
Islam as a religion and Muslims as a group have continued to ignore Jerusalem as a non-entity and continue to bow toward Mecca when they pray. However, the myth that the Temple Mount is actually the place of Mohammed's alleged ascent continues to exist. That myth has become factual history, as the Arab/Muslims claim that the Jews' most holy site, built thousands of years before Christianity or the beginnings of Islam belongs to Islam. And the West continues to believe the myth as the Mullahs babble about their non-existent history, harking back to the Philistines and other tribes long gone.
Hamas explains general principles and objectives in 42-article document.
PA/PLO leader Abbas seems intentionally to ignore that he and his PA/PLO are responsible for the violence, as a result of their daily incitement against Israel. A recent poll found that approximately half of 'Palestinians' believe the "Intifada" should lead to the destruction of Israel.
This is an account of what happened in Halamish last Friday night, July 21, 2017, as told by a neighbor of the Solomon family, who lives three doors away from where the terror attack took place.
The tragedy of the pro-'Palestinian' movement is its attachment to a single narrative: "Look at how wretched the lives of the 'Palestinian' people are," they tell us, "It is because of Israeli oppression." Because this narrative must be constantly reinforced, there is little room for real reporting about the failures of the 'Palestinian' leadership and the corruption and infighting that have caused the 'West Bank' [i.e., Judea & Samaria] and Gaza to languish.
The Arab leadership is attempting to portray the current Intifada as a kind of popular, spontaneous struggle that expresses the population's despair over the political situation. In reality, it is an Intifada supported and directed by the Arab leadership of the PA/PLO-Fatah and Hamas.
US Jewish leaders blew it recently when what was a rare opportunity to ask the US president face-to-face to release Jonathan Pollard, they didn't even consider the matter as being a priority.
Obama needs to wake up. The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real enemy is Iran, Hizb'Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Islamic State, and the establishment of a terrorist state in the midst of Israel.
It's no state secret that US President Barack Obama is not a huge fan of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His distain for the Jewish leader is well-known throughout the world; he's never tried to hide it. But now that Israel is having new elections in March does it mean Obama could, either directly or indirectly, influence the elections in Israel in order to obtain a defeat for Netanyahu?