(1) Obama to support a UNSC resolution on Palestine - the day after the election (2) Obama's November surprise: he won't veto UNSC resolution on Palestine, after the election (3) At AIPAC instigation, 88 senators urge Obama to veto UN resolution on Palestine (4) Paris summit calls for international conference on Palestine by year’s end (1) Obama to support a UNSC resolution on Palestine - the day after the election http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/benjamin-netanyahu-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-donald-trump.html Obama and Israel: It ain’t over till it’s over In his meeting with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in New York Sept. 25, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu managed to get out of her what he failed to extract from the serving president, Barack Obama. He got her to promise that she would oppose any attempt by "external forces" to force a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, including any resolution by the United Nations Security Council. Those close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fear that if Donald Trump wins the elections, President Barack Obama will use the time left before the end of his term to launch a diplomatic initiative on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Author Ben Caspit Posted September 26, 2016 Translator Danny Wool That was the sole purpose of their meeting, at least as far as Netanyahu was concerned. His feelings about Clinton are well-known. He would do anything to make sure that she doesn’t get to the White House. Since it really isn’t up to him, however, the prime minister took advantage of this sensitive time, right before the first televised debated between Clinton and Donald Trump, to use the Democratic candidate to keep Obama in check, as Obama continues to debate about what to do about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict before he leaves the White House. Concern in Jerusalem grew considerably after Netanyahu’s most recent meeting with Obama Sept. 21 in New York. In what can only be considered unusual, the meeting did not include an intimate, closed-door session involving just the two leaders, as is customary in meetings of this sort. In interviews after the event, Netanyahu confirmed that the issue of a possible presidential initiative during Obama’s final weeks in office did not come up in their meeting. The person most responsible for increasing Israeli paranoia is long-serving US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro. In an interview with Channel 10 after the meeting, he tossed around rather explicit hints about the options now facing the president. He said that the question that Obama is asking himself now is what the United States can contribute to preserve the two-state solution as a realistic objective, which the next administration might be able to achieve. Shapiro then added that the question — about which no decision has been made yet — is whether an initiative in the UN or some other international forum could contribute to the effort, which would continue under the next administration. The ambassador stressed that the Obama administration will certainly not support any decision that goes against Israel. After many long months of leaks, speculations and rumors, this was the first time that a senior US official close to Obama confirmed on record that the president is considering giving his support to a diplomatic initiative regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the UN Security Council. The Israeli assessment that Obama will "chicken out" at the last minute and make do with a presidential "parameters" speech, just like President Bill Clinton did in 2000, was suddenly dealt an unexpected blow. Indeed, in response to Al-Monitor’s request, the White House had no comment on the ambassador’s interview with Channel 10, but Clinton’s statement managed to mitigate some of Jerusalem’s paranoia. On the other hand, "It’s not over till it’s over," one senior Israeli official in Jerusalem told Al-Monitor Sept. 26 on condition of anonymity. "Obama could well be playing with us and wants us to be kept in suspense until his very last moment in office." Shapiro’s comments correspond well with remarks by US Secretary of State John Kerry at a closed-door meeting with the donor nations to the Palestinians on Sept. 19. According to a report in Haaretz, Kerry was very critical of Israel’s policies in the occupied territories, saying that Israel and the Palestinians are headed in the direction of a single state and war. He then added that if the international community really wants to stop this trend of unsustainable status quo, "either we mean it and we act on it, or we should shut up." Despite the Israeli assessment that Kerry was referring to steps on the ground, rather than some diplomatic initiative, his comments testify to the mood in the White House surrounding Obama. The president is about to decide whether to initiate a diplomatic process through the Security Council, to coordinate such an initiative with the French or give up and let the Palestinians and Israelis continue to squabble. As of now, Jerusalem believes that Obama will make his decision on the day after the US election, once the whole world knows which candidate is about to enter the White House. "If Trump is elected, Obama will feel free to do what he wants and follow his heart and gut," one senior Israeli diplomatic source told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. "In that case, chances are good that the president will go all the way to block and trap Trump, creating a new reality in the diplomatic arena, which will make it difficult for Israel to continue its current policies." The big question is what Obama will do if Clinton is elected. "In that case," the same Israeli source said, "the question will be to what degree Obama wants to coordinate with Clinton." One US source close to the administration, who asked to remain anonymous, believes that Obama will coordinate all his moves with Clinton. Yet even this assessment fails to solve the equation, since the real question is what Clinton wants. Would she prefer to have Obama leave the work to her or would she rather that he do all the heavy lifting, make it easier for her to pressure Israel innocently, saying that the constraints were dictated by the previous administration. People surrounding Netanyahu are concerned that Clinton will signal to Obama with a wink that he should go for broke by initiating a Security Council resolution, which would shorten the whole process of dealing with Netanyahu on the day after. Thus, she will be free of any pressure by the Jewish lobby, headed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, since the president before her initiated the move. This is Netanyahu’s nightmare scenario, which was alleviated, at least in part, after his meeting with Clinton Sept. 25. Netanyahu is caught in an amusing conflict of interests. On one hand, it is obvious that he would prefer to see Trump win the election. The meeting he had with Trump at his home in New York lasted almost twice as long as his meeting with Clinton (close to 11?2 hours with the Republican candidate, compared to just 50 minutes with the Democratic candidate). The two men were more intimate; they both remember well the video clip in support of Netanyahu that Trump released before the 2013 Israeli election. Right now, Netanyahu would love to release a similar clip in support of the Republican candidate, but he can’t. He would love to release it even though no one has any idea what a Trump presidency would be like in terms of Israel. On the other hand, Netanyahu knows that a Trump victory would only push Obama closer to a UN Security Council resolution and a diplomatic catastrophe for his own policy. Luckily for him, Netanyahu is not the one who needs to choose between the two options. That’s the role of the American voter. (2) Obama's November surprise: he won't veto UNSC resolution on Palestine, after the election http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/NO-HOLDS-BARRED-Obamas-November-surprise-for-Israel-456099 By SHMULEY BOTEACH  06/06/2016 22:05 Obama’s November surprise for Israel? Word is going around in diplomatic circles that the Obama administration is planning a November surprise for Israel. Here’s what is said to be going on. The Paris peace conference last week, to which Israel and the Palestinians were not even invited, will end up exerting enormous pressure on Israel to create a Palestinian state. This renewed pressure will come despite evidence that a Palestinian state in the West Bank will quickly be dominated by genocidal Hamas, which is a threat to Israel and a disaster for the Palestinians. This will lead, in all likelihood, to a United Nations Security Council Resolution either condemning Israel for not creating that state or for not withdrawing from Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, despite the fact that doing so would irreversibly compromise Israel’s security. Now, here is where it gets interesting. Israeli officials and Jewish communal leaders have told me that they expect that the Obama administration will not veto the resolution at the UNSC. Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, will not exercise the American veto. This would mean that the resolution/condemnation goes through. President Barack Obama will not worry about how this might affect Hillary Clinton’s election prospects because the UN resolution will come after the November election. And that’s how the Obama administration will wrap up – with a UN vote against Israel and the United States, for almost the first time, not vetoing a harmful resolution against Israel. Israel will be powerless to stop it. What gives credence to this speculation first and foremost is the Paris conference itself. If it were a serious conference about the prospects for peace, why on earth were the Israelis and Palestinians not invited? Israel has insisted on direct, bilateral talks without preconditions. The Paris talks therefore seem to be a complete waste of time, unless their purpose was to lead to a resolution at the UN regardless of Israeli objections. What further gives this credence is the fact that last June, in a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Powers would not commit to exercising an American veto at the UN for a resolution condemning Israel. "I really am going to resist making blanket declarations on hypothetical resolutions. Our position, again, I think has been very clear for some time. I have said, again, we would oppose anything that was designed to punish Israel or undermine Israel’s security. But I think, again, it’s perilous. There’s no resolution in front of us." Now, if a Security Council resolution authorizing a timetable for the unilateral creation of a Palestinian state is resisted by Israel and not vetoed by the US, there exists the possibility of economic sanctions being levied against the Jewish state, especially by the European Union. This is far more serious than the boycott movement, which essentially involves non-binding student council resolutions against the Jewish state. Don’t get me wrong. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement undeniably anti-Semitic, must be fought and resisted. It delegitimizes Israel on campus, demonizes Israel and Jews, creates a spirit of intimidation against Jewish students on campus, and often whitewashes organizations that advocate violence and terrorism. Still, actual economic sanctions imposed by governments is even more serious. At her Senate confirmation hearings, which I attended at Powers’ invitation, she promised that at the UN "I will stand up for Israel and work tirelessly to defend it." At the AIPAC Annual Policy Conference in Washington, DC, last March, Samantha avowed, "It is a false choice to tell Israel that it has to choose between peace on the one hand, and security on the other. The United Nations would not ask any other country to make that choice, and it should not ask it of Israel." Security is the foundation of any sustainable peace framework in the Middle East. The US has long stood for justice and served as an essential check against overreach, anti-Semitism and double standards by Arab and European nations at the UN against Israel. The Palestinian Authority leadership has repeatedly proven itself incapable of adhering to basic democratic principles, transparency and rule of law. The PA’s history of graft, support of terrorism and lack of accountability is staggering. Long before Powers became ambassador, she was a highly-regarded academic studying human rights at Harvard’s Kennedy School. It was there that she wrote the Pulitzer-winning book that launched her career into orbit, A Problem from Hell, the stirring and essential indictment of the inability of the US to act against genocide over the past 100 years. It remains one of the most important books I have ever read. But as her star rose in the Obama administration, many began paying attention to other early statements and writing, including specific ones that raised concerns about her attitude toward Israel and understanding of the conflict. These might have gone unnoticed for any ordinary academic speaking loosely early in her career, but Samantha was no ordinary academic. Due to those earlier statements, Samantha wasn’t implicitly trusted by members of the Jewish community when she took her role in the National Security Council. After writing an op-ed where I encouraged her to clarify her statements, she did just that. We met in the White House, and spoke candidly – and even quite emotionally – about Israel, the challenges in the region, and the real concerns that some had about her earlier statements. Her passion and support of Israel was persuasive. I became intent on transforming the Jewish community’s opinion of her, working side-by-side to persuade others that she was someone whose judgment and understanding of the conflict could be trusted when it came to issues related to Israel. Ultimately, when the time came for her nomination to serve as US ambassador to the UN, the Jewish American community registered strong, widespread support. Now, with the possibility of a serious anti-Israel resolution making its way through the UN with the potential to do long-term harm to the Jewish state, Samantha will be confronted with the stark choice of standing firm and acting on her commitment to Israel and the Jewish community and her loyalty to the president and his administration in its last days. With anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment growing worldwide, we rely on Powers to not only honor her pledge of support for the Jewish state but to stand squarely against Hamas and its genocidal pledge, stated clearly in its covenant, to annihilate the Jewish people wherever they may be found. I am confident the Samantha Power I know will stand with Israel. Her legacy and the security of the Jewish state depends on it. The author, whom The Washington Post calls "the most famous rabbi in America," is the founder of The World Values Network and is the international best-selling author of 30 books, including his just-published, The Israel Warrior: Fighting Back for the Jewish State from Campus to Street Corner. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley. (3) At AIPAC instigation, 88 senators urge Obama to veto UN resolution on Palestine http://www.timesofisrael.com/88-senators-urge-obama-to-uphold-veto-on-one-sided-un-resolutions/ 88 senators urge Obama to uphold veto on ‘one-sided’ UN resolutions In bipartisan letter, lawmakers say ‘even well-intentioned initiatives’ on Israel can hinder progress, call on president to remain ‘trusted mediator’ BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF September 20, 2016, 6:54 am On the eve of a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama in New York Tuesday, 88 US senators penned a letter to the commander-in-chief urging him to uphold for the duration of his term the US policy of opposing "one-sided" United Nations resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and vetoing them where necessary. In their missive commended by the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Monday, the senators say that while they are disappointed that Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are stalled, the only way to resolve the conflict is through "direct negotiations that lead to a sustainable two-state solution," echoing a stance held by Netanyahu himself. The letter was initiated by Michael Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, and New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand, a Democrat. In it, the signatories — among them Tim Kaine, the Democratic vice presidential nominee — argued that the US must remain "an indispensable trusted mediator" between Israelis and Palestinians, and that the international community should "avoid taking action that would harm the prospects for meaningful progress." "Even well-intentioned initiatives at the United Nations risk locking the parties into positions that will make it more difficult to return to the negotiating table and make the compromises necessary for peace," the senators wrote adding that the US "must continue to insist that neither we nor any other outsider substitute for the parties to the conflict." Quoting from a 2011 address Obama gave to the General Assembly in which he said that "peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations," the senators reminded the US president that his "administration has consistently upheld the longstanding US policy of opposing — and if necessary vetoing — one-sided UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions." The letter came amid concerns and reports that Obama would consider letting the Security Council vote in a resolution deemed unfavorable to Israel, without using the US veto, at some point before he leaves office in January. On Sunday, a former top US official said that a looming Donald Trump presidency would make it more likely for Obama to support a resolution laying down the basic parameters for the creation of Palestinian state. "I suspect that if Trump wins, the president would be more inclined to go for a Security Council resolution to try to do something that binds, creates standards for the future that the next president couldn’t undo," Dennis Ross said at a conference on the future of Zionism and the US-Israel relationship. "If Clinton wins, I suspect he [Obama] would be more sensitive to her concerns as to whether this helps or hurt her." Ross, who worked on Israeli-Palestinian issues for decades, including a two-year stint as special assistant to Obama and a year as special adviser to Hillary Clinton, said that the current president "would like to do something, leave some kind of legacy." In April, 394 House Republicans and Democrats — more than 90 percent of the 435 representatives — sent a letter to Obama urging him to reject any actions by the UN that are biased against Israel. The letter was sent amid reports at the time that the Palestinian Authority would revive a draft resolution against Israel’s policies in the West Bank, similar to the one vetoed in 2011 at the Security Council by the United States. (4) Paris summit calls for international conference on Palestine by year’s end http://www.timesofisrael.com/paris-summit-ends-with-call-for-international-conference-by-years-end/ French FM: 'We have chosen to extend a hand to the Israelis and the Palestinians. We hope that they accept it' Paris summit ends with vague call for international conference by year’s end Participants warn time is running out on two-state solution, blame violence and settlement activity, but don’t set timeline for progress BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF, RAPHAEL AHREN AND AGENCIES June 3, 2016, 4:03 pm A one-day Israeli-Palestinian peace summit in Paris — to which the Israelis and Palestinians were not invited — concluded Friday with a warning that violence and settlement activity are imperiling a two-state solution, and a call for an international conference on the issue before the end of the year. "We must act, urgently, to preserve the two-state solution, revive it before it is too late," French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said after the meeting. The closing communique did not set a firm timetable for further efforts, however. And while France portrayed Friday’s meeting as a first step by the international community to weigh different options, the Americans have been chilly towards the talks, although Secretary of State John Kerry attended, and Israel has flatly opposed to French efforts, calling instead on the Palestinians to enter direct peace talks without conditions. The closing communique was less harsh toward Israel than members of the Arab League had sought, and its general emphasis on the two-state solution represented a compromise in which the United States and the European Union tempered an effort by the Arab League to make a statement that was more critical of Israel’s policies, Western diplomats told Haaretz. "We have chosen to extend a hand to the Israelis and the Palestinians. We hope that they accept it," Ayrault said. He warned that a solution which would see Israelis and Palestinians living side by side was "getting further away each day." Israel quickly dismissed the gathering as a "missed opportunity," claiming its participants had caved to Palestinian demands. The Palestinians, by contrast, welcomed what they called a "significant step" against Israel’s "apartheid policies in occupied Palestine." In their closing communique, the more than two dozen participating nations reaffirmed that "a negotiated two-state solution is the only way to achieve an enduring peace, with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security." They expressed alarm that "actions on the ground, in particular continued acts of violence and ongoing settlement activity, are dangerously imperiling the prospects for a two-state solution." Calling for an end to the "Israeli occupation that begin in 1967," the participants said they had "discussed possible ways in which the international community could help advance the prospects for peace, including by providing meaningful incentives" and "highlighted the potential for regional peace and security as envisioned by the Arab Peace Initiative." EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini stressed that the aim of the summit was not to impose terms, but rather to create conditions in which substantive negotiations could resume. "The policy of settlement expansion and demolitions, violence, and incitement tells us very clearly that the perspective that Oslo opened up is seriously at risk of fading away," she told reporters. The closing communique also highlighted the key role of the Quartet and key regional stakeholders. "They welcomed the interested countries’ offer to contribute to this effort. They also welcomed France’s offer to coordinate it, and the prospect of convening before the end of the year an international conference." The foreign ministers of the United States, European nations, and several Arab states were among those attending the meeting. No Israeli or Palestinian officials were invited. French President Francois Hollande kicked off the summit by calling on both sides to make the "courageous choice" to advance peace. "This initiative has only one goal, peace in Middle East. It was desirable and became necessary," Hollande said at the opening session of the conference. "We can’t take the place of the parties," he said, acknowledging the absence of both Israeli and Palestinian officials. "We can only make sure that peace will be solid, lasting and internationally safeguarded." Ahead of the summit, an internal document sent by the French Foreign Ministry to participating nations had anticipated that "ministers will agree on the principle that a clear timetable will need to be established for the negotiations when they restart, and that some interim review might be necessary to gauge the seriousness of the process." The head of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, Dore Gold, said Thursday that the French initiative was "doomed to failure." Israel has been adamant in its utter rejection of the French initiative, arguing that only bilateral talks can lead to progress. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he seeks a two-state solution, with a demilitarized Palestine that recognize Israel as the Jewish state. Netanyahu’s office on Friday doubled down on its criticism of the summit, asserting that it was bound to fail. "We need direct negotiations, and for that we don’t need to go as far as Paris," an official from the Prime Minister’s Office told Army Radio just a few hours before the conference kicked off. Israel’s Internal Security Minister Gilad Erdan said what was happening in Paris was "surreal," since it was entirely unrealistic to believe that anything said or done there could change things for the better on the ground. The only way to solve the conflict was via direct talks, but Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas "has been boycotting Israel for the past seven years," said Erdan, and has decided to spend "the remainder of his days trying to damage Israel internationally." "The way to peace does not go through international conferences that seek to impose agreements, make the Palestinians’ demands more extreme and thereby make peace more remote," Netanyahu said Wednesday. "The way to peace is via direct negotiations without preconditions between the sides. This is how peace was achieved in the past with Egypt and Jordan and this is what needs to be with the Palestinians." If the countries gathering in Paris really wanted to promote peace, they should urge Abbas to enter direct bilateral talks with Israel, Netanyahu added. "This is the way to peace — there is no other." Kerry "looks forward to being a participant" in the conference, State Department spokesperson John Kirby had said Wednesday. America’s top diplomat is "not going to turn up his nose at any good ideas that could get us closer to seeing a two-state solution in place. Kerry remains keenly interested in the Middle East peace process and will "talk to anybody that might be able to come up with viable alternatives and solutions to get us there," Kirby added. "Ultimately, though, it’s going to take leadership there on all sides to take the kinds of affirmative steps that are necessary to ease the tensions and to get us closer to a two-state solution. It has to start there." -- Peter Myers website: http://mailstar.net/index.html |
Archives‎ > ‎