Our Country Is In The Best Of Hands
In one of the most embarrassing moments of modern diplomacy, Obama uttered the sophomoric “give peace a chance” ideology in regards to Iran.
“My preference is for peace and diplomacy, and this is one of the reasons why I’ve sent the message to Congress that now is not the time for us to impose new sanctions, now is the time for us to allow the diplomats and technical experts to do their work.”
“What we want to do is give diplomacy a chance, and give peace a chance.”
Meanwhile, Iran is doing a victory lap.
Iran’s “moderate” president, Hassan Rouhani, tweeted this morning that “world powers,” including the U.S., had “surrendered” to the “Iranian nation’s will” in confirming a six-month interim nuclear deal that will allow the Iranian regime to continue its advanced centrifuge program and develop a new nuclear facility at Arak.
Let’s remember who these people are – they sent CHILDREN to the front lines in their war with Iraq. Children as young as 12.
Obama’s foreign policy has been a disaster, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan, then devolving into Egypt, Syria, Russia and Iran.
“American Secretary of State John Kerry, who turned up here determined and acting out of misplaced obsession and messianic fervor, cannot teach me anything about the conflict with the Palestinians,” Yaalon said, according to the paper.
You’re supposed to pretend that he’s serious about brokering peace.
“If these comments are accurate, we find the remarks of the defense minister to be offensive and inappropriate, especially given all that the United States has done to support Israel’s security needs and will continue to do,” she said at a regular media briefing. “Secretary Kerry and his team, including Gen. (John) Allen, have been working day and night to try to promote a secure peace for Israel because of the secretary’s deep concern for Israel’s future.”
In a fiery speech broadcast live on Palestinian television Monday, the Palestinian minister for religious affairs called for Muslims to flock to Jerusalem to fight a holy war, or jihad. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas sat front and center in the audience and joined others in applauding his minister’s speech, according to video released by a watchdog organization.
But Kerry is super cereal about the negotiations. I don’t know how this is going to fit in:
In a speech over the weekend, Abbas voiced a hardline position on key negotiating issues, insisting that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a “right” to move to the land on which the State of Israel sits and that he would not agree to any peace deal that does not include east Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.
The NYT (no link, I hate them) points out the obvious:
Mr. Kerry is trying to persuade Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu to agree to a framework that would set out the core principles of a peace deal and provide guidelines for continuing to discuss the details. Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials have in recent days splashed cold water on the effort, suggesting that the two sides may have irreconcilable differences on borders, refugees, security, the status of Jerusalem and the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
Ba haaa haa haaa … you think? The Geeeniuuuses at the NYT needed senior officials to point this out?
The Palestinians are ridiculous, and one need only investigate ONE of the sticking points to realize this: the Jerusalem issue.
Abbas and hard liners demand that there is no peace agreement without a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem. Daniel Pipes explains why this is an issue. Jerusalem is of significant religious importance to both Jews and Christians. Not so much to Muslims.
It is not the place to which they pray, is not once mentioned by name in prayers, and it is connected to no mundane events in Muhammad’s life. The city never served as capital of a sovereign Muslim state, and it never became a cultural or scholarly center. Little of political import by Muslims was initiated there.
But now it is a focal point.
The city being of such evidently minor religious importance, why does it now loom so large for Muslims, to the point that a Muslim Zionism seems to be in the making across the Muslim world? Why do Palestinian demonstrators take to the streets shouting “We will sacrifice our blood and souls for you, Jerusalem” and their brethren in Jordan yell “We sacrifice our blood and soul for Al-Aqsa”? Why does King Fahd of Saudi Arabia call on Muslim states to protect “the holy city [that] belongs to all Muslims across the world”? Why did two surveys of American Muslims find Jerusalem their most pressing foreign policy issue?
Yes, why? Politics. Of course. Muslims only care about Jerusalem when others seem to care about the city. Time and time again, they have neglected the town.
Politics, not religious sensibility, has fueled the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem for nearly fourteen centuries; what the historian Bernard Wasserstein has written about the growth of Muslim feeling in the course of the Countercrusade applies through the centuries: “often in the history of Jerusalem, heightened religious fervour may be explained in large part by political necessity.” This pattern has three main implications. First, Jerusalem will never be more than a secondary city for Muslims; “belief in the sanctity of Jerusalem,” Sivan rightly concludes, “cannot be said to have been widely diffused nor deeply rooted in Islam.” Second, the Muslim interest lies not so much in controlling Jerusalem as it does in denying control over the city to anyone else. Third, the Islamic connection to the city is weaker than the Jewish one because it arises as much from transitory and mundane considerations as from the immutable claims of faith.
MECCA is the central city of Islam; a city in which non-Muslims are not even ALLOWED to enter. Can you imagine if non-Muslims demanded entry into Mecca? let alone wanted it as a non-Muslim capital. Yet Palestinians have made Jerusalem a central point – perhaps THE central point – to their peace negotiations with Israel.
Exit question: When will Kerry get his Nobel?