Tweet
Jerusalem Post
Oct 19 2007
Column One: Idle talk, reckless talk
By CAROLINE GLICK
Apparently US and Israeli leaders think that idle chatter is risk
free. Last week, the Democrats in the US Congress decided to take on
the Ottoman Empire. Acting boldly, the House Foreign Relations
Committee condemned the empire (which ceased to exist in 1917) for
committing genocide against the Armenians in 1915.
The Democrats' goal is clear. They wish to use the Armenian genocide
as a way to embarrass the Bush administration, which like its
predecessors over the past 92 years, has yet to acknowledge the
Armenian genocide. And they have succeeded.
The administration that lobbies and begs the Turks not to invade
Iraqi Kurdistan in response to the terror attacks carried out inside
Turkey by PKK terrorists based in Iraqi Kurdistan; the administration
that lobbies and begs the Turks to continue to allow US forces to use
Incirlik air base to move troops and materiel into Iraq; the
administration that is searching for a way to build proper relations
with a Turkey that has now twice elected the pro-jihad AKP party to
lead it - that administration has been duly embarrassed.
But the Democrats' petty political achievement has come at a
devastating cost for America. The Democrats' declaration induced the
worst crisis in US-Turkish relations in recent memory. Turkey has
recalled its ambassador from Washington. On Wednesday, the Turkish
parliament overwhelmingly approved an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan.
And Turkish military commanders are threatening to bar the US from
using the air base in Incirlik.
THIS TALE of the consequences of empty rhetoric should serve as a
warning for Israel and the US as the Olmert government moves forward
in its "peace" negotiations with Fatah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas ahead
of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's planned "peace"
conference at Annapolis.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's ability to conduct negations with Rice
and Abbas regarding the partition of Jerusalem, the surrender of
Judea and Samaria and the establishment of an armed Palestinian state
in the areas that Israel vacates owes much to his coalition partners
in Shas and Israel Beiteinu's preference for empty rhetoric over
action.
On Sunday, Shas leader Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai told Rice
that Shas opposes partitioning Jerusalem. Yishai warned Rice, "If the
sides return from [Annapolis] with a signed document and a done-deal,
this could destabilize and end the tenure of the government."
Given that Rice didn't miss a beat in speaking forcefully of her
ardent commitment to establishing a Jew-free Palestinian state in
Hamas-dominated Gaza, and Hamas-ascendant Judea and Samaria and
Jerusalem, Yishai's statement clearly failed to impress her.
For his part, Avigdor Lieberman's rhetoric is increasingly
incoherent. Last week, after blaming the Left for all of Israel's
woes, Lieberman joined its ranks by calling for a partition of
Jerusalem. It works out that this paragon of supposedly "hard-line"
rightist ideals supports surrendering the Arab neighborhoods
surrounding the Jewish neighborhoods of Pisgat Ze'ev, Neveh Ya'acov,
Ramot, Arnona, Gilo, Armon Hanatziv and Har Homa to Hamas.
But then this week, Lieberman suddenly remembered that he has voters
to consider. And so Sunday he announced that he opposes Olmert's
attempt to reach an agreement regarding Jerusalem's partition with
Fatah.
LIKE THE Democrats' condemnation of the Ottomans, Lieberman and
Yishai's empty rhetoric targets a domestic audience. And like the
Democrats' condemnation of the Ottoman Empire, while their statements
will have no impact on government policy, the consequences of those
statements for Israel are far reaching and dangerous.
Yishai and Lieberman talk because they don't want to take the only
step open to them if they truly wish to prevent damage to the
country. That step of course is resignation from the Olmert
government and support for new elections. And Olmert knows this.
It is because he understands their ardent desire to remain in office
that Olmert feels he runs no political risk by negotiating away
Israel's survivability to Abbas. Yishai and Lieberman's vacuous
pronouncements enable Olmert to move forward toward national
capitulation.
Additionally, their empty declarations of opposition to Olmert's
moves lull the public into complacency. They make us believe that
they are curbing Olmert's urge to capitulate and so mitigating the
dangers to the state. But as Olmert's repeated statements regarding
the partition of Jerusalem make clear, as long as they are inside the
government they exert no influence over him.
Even if Yishai and Lieberman resign in the aftermath of the
conference at Annapolis, their move will come too late to make a
difference. The damage to Israel's security will already have been
wrought. This is clear because even before a date has been set for
the conference, we already know how it will end, if it is convened,
and we already know the basic contours of its aftermath.
We know with near absolute certainty that the conference will end in
failure. The conference will fail because there is no offer that
Israel can make that Abbas can accept. Abbas, who doesn't even
control his own Fatah terrorists - let alone Hamas and Islamic Jihad
- has no real support among Palestinians. He already lost the
Palestinian elections and Gaza to Hamas. Abbas cannot accept any
offer from Israel after his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, chose to go
to war rather than make peace.
Statements by both Hamas and Fatah leaders over the past several
weeks also make clear what will happen after the summit collapses. As
was the case after the failure of the Camp David peace conference in
July 2000, in the aftermath of the Annapolis conference, Fatah and
Hamas will reunite and the Palestinians will open a new round of
jihad against Israel. And in light of Egypt's open and stalwart
backing of Hamas, and given Hamas's subservience to Iran, it is
impossible to assume that the coming war will be limited to the
Palestinian arena.
Today a rare Right-Left consensus has emerged in Israel which
recognizes that Olmert has no public mandate for making far-reaching
concessions to Abbas. In light of this, it is argued with some
justification that even if Olmert offers Abbas far-reaching
concessions regarding Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, he will be
unable to implement them. Noting this, many government and Kadima
officials claim that there is no reason for concern about the talks
Olmert is holding with Rice and Abbas. But this is untrue.
In July 2000, then-prime minister Ehud Barak conducted negotiations
with Arafat at Camp David after his government lost a no-confidence
vote in the Knesset. In the fall of 2000, Barak conducted further
negotiations with Arafat at Taba where he expanded the concessions he
had offered at Camp David. Those negotiations took place after
Barak's government had already fallen and elections had been called
for January 2001.
In December 2000, outgoing US president Bill Clinton presented his
Middle East peace plan, which essentially codified the concessions
Barak offered at Taba. Clinton announced his plan despite the fact
that George W. Bush, who had been elected the month before, had
expressed deep misgivings about the by-then-defunct
Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
When Ariel Sharon and Bush succeeded Barak and Clinton, both asserted
that the Israeli offers at Camp David and Taba and the Clinton peace
plan were no longer on the table. But to their discredit, neither
leader took any steps to translate those statements into reality. And
so today, seven years later, Barak's offers are being used by Olmert
and Abbas as the starting point for their negotiations. Indeed,
according to Palestinian spokesmen, it was Olmert who insisted on
basing today's negotiations on Barak's offers.
What we learn from this is that offers made by an Israeli government
bereft of both a public mandate and popular support remain
perpetually on the table. As a result, even though Olmert and Abbas
will fail to reach an agreement at Annapolis, the offers that Olmert
will make there will survive long after he and his government leave
office.
All of this demonstrates the dire consequences of Yishai and
Lieberman's preference for idle chatter over action. By remaining in
the government they do two things: They enable Olmert to participate
in a "peace" conference that will lead to war. And they enable Olmert
to place Israel's existence in long-term jeopardy. If his proposed
concessions are ever implemented, they will render Israel
indefensible while enabling the establishment of a terror state with
its capital in Jerusalem. And even if they are not implemented today,
those concessions will remain on the table and form the basis for
future talks.
YISHAI AND Lieberman are Olmert and Rice's enablers. But it is Rice
and Olmert who lead us down the road to disaster. What accounts for
their reckless behavior?
By any objective standard, Rice has failed in office. On her way to
Israel, she and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Moscow,
where they were publicly humiliated by Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
Under Rice's stewardship, the US failed to foresee or reckon with
Russia's abandonment of the West. Consequently, today the US has no
coherent policy for contending with the Kremlin. The same is the case
with Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Kim Jung-Il's North Korea and Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's Iran. And this is Rice's fault.
As the clock ticks toward the end of Bush's time in office, Rice
fears history's impending verdict. And so she seeks a singular
achievement. Like her failed predecessors, she has turned to Israel.
Like so many others before her, Rice hopes to force Israel to make
concessions that will lead to war only after she is safely ensconced
at Stanford University.
In her race to a signing ceremony, Rice ignores the fact that through
her actions she is destroying America's international credibility.
Her genuflection to the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole on
the one hand and her open hostility and moral condemnation of Israel
on the other destroy US credibility twice. First, by ignoring all of
Bush's previous demands for the Arabs and the Palestinians to abjure
terror and accept the Jewish state's right to exist, Rice is making
clear that countries will pay no price for supporting terror and
jihad. Second, by running roughshod over Israel, Rice shows that
there is no advantage to be had by being a loyal ally of America.
Then there is Olmert. When not engaged in surrendering Hebron and
Jerusalem to Hamas, Olmert faces his police investigators. As the
subject of three separate official criminal probes, Olmert's desire
to divert attention away from the fact that he is unfit for office is
so great that he is willing to give up Israel's right to defensible
borders and to its capital city.
Like the Democrats in Congress, Yishai and Lieberman demonstrate the
deleterious consequences of empty talk. For their part, Rice and
Olmert show us how reckless talk born of personal arrogance can sink
the ship of state. Both instances show us the deadly consequences of
misused rhetoric. What will it take for these petty politicians to
understand this?
Oct 19 2007
Column One: Idle talk, reckless talk
By CAROLINE GLICK
Apparently US and Israeli leaders think that idle chatter is risk
free. Last week, the Democrats in the US Congress decided to take on
the Ottoman Empire. Acting boldly, the House Foreign Relations
Committee condemned the empire (which ceased to exist in 1917) for
committing genocide against the Armenians in 1915.
The Democrats' goal is clear. They wish to use the Armenian genocide
as a way to embarrass the Bush administration, which like its
predecessors over the past 92 years, has yet to acknowledge the
Armenian genocide. And they have succeeded.
The administration that lobbies and begs the Turks not to invade
Iraqi Kurdistan in response to the terror attacks carried out inside
Turkey by PKK terrorists based in Iraqi Kurdistan; the administration
that lobbies and begs the Turks to continue to allow US forces to use
Incirlik air base to move troops and materiel into Iraq; the
administration that is searching for a way to build proper relations
with a Turkey that has now twice elected the pro-jihad AKP party to
lead it - that administration has been duly embarrassed.
But the Democrats' petty political achievement has come at a
devastating cost for America. The Democrats' declaration induced the
worst crisis in US-Turkish relations in recent memory. Turkey has
recalled its ambassador from Washington. On Wednesday, the Turkish
parliament overwhelmingly approved an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan.
And Turkish military commanders are threatening to bar the US from
using the air base in Incirlik.
THIS TALE of the consequences of empty rhetoric should serve as a
warning for Israel and the US as the Olmert government moves forward
in its "peace" negotiations with Fatah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas ahead
of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's planned "peace"
conference at Annapolis.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's ability to conduct negations with Rice
and Abbas regarding the partition of Jerusalem, the surrender of
Judea and Samaria and the establishment of an armed Palestinian state
in the areas that Israel vacates owes much to his coalition partners
in Shas and Israel Beiteinu's preference for empty rhetoric over
action.
On Sunday, Shas leader Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai told Rice
that Shas opposes partitioning Jerusalem. Yishai warned Rice, "If the
sides return from [Annapolis] with a signed document and a done-deal,
this could destabilize and end the tenure of the government."
Given that Rice didn't miss a beat in speaking forcefully of her
ardent commitment to establishing a Jew-free Palestinian state in
Hamas-dominated Gaza, and Hamas-ascendant Judea and Samaria and
Jerusalem, Yishai's statement clearly failed to impress her.
For his part, Avigdor Lieberman's rhetoric is increasingly
incoherent. Last week, after blaming the Left for all of Israel's
woes, Lieberman joined its ranks by calling for a partition of
Jerusalem. It works out that this paragon of supposedly "hard-line"
rightist ideals supports surrendering the Arab neighborhoods
surrounding the Jewish neighborhoods of Pisgat Ze'ev, Neveh Ya'acov,
Ramot, Arnona, Gilo, Armon Hanatziv and Har Homa to Hamas.
But then this week, Lieberman suddenly remembered that he has voters
to consider. And so Sunday he announced that he opposes Olmert's
attempt to reach an agreement regarding Jerusalem's partition with
Fatah.
LIKE THE Democrats' condemnation of the Ottomans, Lieberman and
Yishai's empty rhetoric targets a domestic audience. And like the
Democrats' condemnation of the Ottoman Empire, while their statements
will have no impact on government policy, the consequences of those
statements for Israel are far reaching and dangerous.
Yishai and Lieberman talk because they don't want to take the only
step open to them if they truly wish to prevent damage to the
country. That step of course is resignation from the Olmert
government and support for new elections. And Olmert knows this.
It is because he understands their ardent desire to remain in office
that Olmert feels he runs no political risk by negotiating away
Israel's survivability to Abbas. Yishai and Lieberman's vacuous
pronouncements enable Olmert to move forward toward national
capitulation.
Additionally, their empty declarations of opposition to Olmert's
moves lull the public into complacency. They make us believe that
they are curbing Olmert's urge to capitulate and so mitigating the
dangers to the state. But as Olmert's repeated statements regarding
the partition of Jerusalem make clear, as long as they are inside the
government they exert no influence over him.
Even if Yishai and Lieberman resign in the aftermath of the
conference at Annapolis, their move will come too late to make a
difference. The damage to Israel's security will already have been
wrought. This is clear because even before a date has been set for
the conference, we already know how it will end, if it is convened,
and we already know the basic contours of its aftermath.
We know with near absolute certainty that the conference will end in
failure. The conference will fail because there is no offer that
Israel can make that Abbas can accept. Abbas, who doesn't even
control his own Fatah terrorists - let alone Hamas and Islamic Jihad
- has no real support among Palestinians. He already lost the
Palestinian elections and Gaza to Hamas. Abbas cannot accept any
offer from Israel after his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, chose to go
to war rather than make peace.
Statements by both Hamas and Fatah leaders over the past several
weeks also make clear what will happen after the summit collapses. As
was the case after the failure of the Camp David peace conference in
July 2000, in the aftermath of the Annapolis conference, Fatah and
Hamas will reunite and the Palestinians will open a new round of
jihad against Israel. And in light of Egypt's open and stalwart
backing of Hamas, and given Hamas's subservience to Iran, it is
impossible to assume that the coming war will be limited to the
Palestinian arena.
Today a rare Right-Left consensus has emerged in Israel which
recognizes that Olmert has no public mandate for making far-reaching
concessions to Abbas. In light of this, it is argued with some
justification that even if Olmert offers Abbas far-reaching
concessions regarding Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, he will be
unable to implement them. Noting this, many government and Kadima
officials claim that there is no reason for concern about the talks
Olmert is holding with Rice and Abbas. But this is untrue.
In July 2000, then-prime minister Ehud Barak conducted negotiations
with Arafat at Camp David after his government lost a no-confidence
vote in the Knesset. In the fall of 2000, Barak conducted further
negotiations with Arafat at Taba where he expanded the concessions he
had offered at Camp David. Those negotiations took place after
Barak's government had already fallen and elections had been called
for January 2001.
In December 2000, outgoing US president Bill Clinton presented his
Middle East peace plan, which essentially codified the concessions
Barak offered at Taba. Clinton announced his plan despite the fact
that George W. Bush, who had been elected the month before, had
expressed deep misgivings about the by-then-defunct
Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
When Ariel Sharon and Bush succeeded Barak and Clinton, both asserted
that the Israeli offers at Camp David and Taba and the Clinton peace
plan were no longer on the table. But to their discredit, neither
leader took any steps to translate those statements into reality. And
so today, seven years later, Barak's offers are being used by Olmert
and Abbas as the starting point for their negotiations. Indeed,
according to Palestinian spokesmen, it was Olmert who insisted on
basing today's negotiations on Barak's offers.
What we learn from this is that offers made by an Israeli government
bereft of both a public mandate and popular support remain
perpetually on the table. As a result, even though Olmert and Abbas
will fail to reach an agreement at Annapolis, the offers that Olmert
will make there will survive long after he and his government leave
office.
All of this demonstrates the dire consequences of Yishai and
Lieberman's preference for idle chatter over action. By remaining in
the government they do two things: They enable Olmert to participate
in a "peace" conference that will lead to war. And they enable Olmert
to place Israel's existence in long-term jeopardy. If his proposed
concessions are ever implemented, they will render Israel
indefensible while enabling the establishment of a terror state with
its capital in Jerusalem. And even if they are not implemented today,
those concessions will remain on the table and form the basis for
future talks.
YISHAI AND Lieberman are Olmert and Rice's enablers. But it is Rice
and Olmert who lead us down the road to disaster. What accounts for
their reckless behavior?
By any objective standard, Rice has failed in office. On her way to
Israel, she and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Moscow,
where they were publicly humiliated by Russian President Vladimir
Putin.
Under Rice's stewardship, the US failed to foresee or reckon with
Russia's abandonment of the West. Consequently, today the US has no
coherent policy for contending with the Kremlin. The same is the case
with Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, Kim Jung-Il's North Korea and Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's Iran. And this is Rice's fault.
As the clock ticks toward the end of Bush's time in office, Rice
fears history's impending verdict. And so she seeks a singular
achievement. Like her failed predecessors, she has turned to Israel.
Like so many others before her, Rice hopes to force Israel to make
concessions that will lead to war only after she is safely ensconced
at Stanford University.
In her race to a signing ceremony, Rice ignores the fact that through
her actions she is destroying America's international credibility.
Her genuflection to the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole on
the one hand and her open hostility and moral condemnation of Israel
on the other destroy US credibility twice. First, by ignoring all of
Bush's previous demands for the Arabs and the Palestinians to abjure
terror and accept the Jewish state's right to exist, Rice is making
clear that countries will pay no price for supporting terror and
jihad. Second, by running roughshod over Israel, Rice shows that
there is no advantage to be had by being a loyal ally of America.
Then there is Olmert. When not engaged in surrendering Hebron and
Jerusalem to Hamas, Olmert faces his police investigators. As the
subject of three separate official criminal probes, Olmert's desire
to divert attention away from the fact that he is unfit for office is
so great that he is willing to give up Israel's right to defensible
borders and to its capital city.
Like the Democrats in Congress, Yishai and Lieberman demonstrate the
deleterious consequences of empty talk. For their part, Rice and
Olmert show us how reckless talk born of personal arrogance can sink
the ship of state. Both instances show us the deadly consequences of
misused rhetoric. What will it take for these petty politicians to
understand this?