Indyk’s Amoral Kiss-and-Tell Story
Indyk’s Amoral Kiss-and-Tell Story, Commentary Magazine, Tom Wilson, May 9, 2014
(The full text of Mr. Indyk’s platitude laden remarks is available here. — DM)
Indyk offered up a serving of platitudes and obvious statements, dressed up with a particularly provocative barb about how Israel’s settlement building is supposedly risking the future of the Jewish state. Among a whole list of predictable observations, Indyk’s remark that if only the U.S. feels a sense of urgency then “the negotiations will not succeed,” seemed particularly unworthy of having been uttered. Indeed, Indyk bemoaned how leaders on both sides “don’t feel the pressing need to make gut-wrenching compromises.” Well, it’s not as if Indyk and Kerry weren’t warned of this fact before they set out on their ill-advised venture. Neither side trusts the other to think that concessions are really warranted, and yet what does Indyk imagine Israel releasing terrorists was if not “gut-wrenching”? If Indyk can be so flippant about the pain caused by these murderers going free then he has either suspended all moral judgment or is completely indifferent to Israeli suffering; perhaps both.
The gap between reality and the picture Indyk and Kerry paint has become so wide that one wonders how it doesn’t simply swallow them both.
Since talks collapsed between Israel and the Palestinians, chief U.S. negotiator Martin Indyk has already gone to the press with at least one kiss-and-tell story, about how Israel sabotaged peace through settlement building. But it seems that Indyk intends to extract still more capital from his role in the doomed negotiations. The business of manipulation and self-promotion that now surrounds the negotiation process has virtually become an end in itself, far outstripping the importance of the always-fruitless negotiations themselves. The talks seem to take place so as to allow individuals on each side to come forward with a drip feed of snippets and revelations, promoting the good will of one side, pouring condemnation on the other.
On Thursday evening, speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s founders conference, Indyk offered up a serving of platitudes and obvious statements, dressed up with a particularly provocative barb about how Israel’s settlement building is supposedly risking the future of the Jewish state. Among a whole list of predictable observations, Indyk’s remark that if only the U.S. feels a sense of urgency then “the negotiations will not succeed,” seemed particularly unworthy of having been uttered. Indeed, Indyk bemoaned how leaders on both sides “don’t feel the pressing need to make gut-wrenching compromises.” Well, it’s not as if Indyk and Kerry weren’t warned of this fact before they set out on their ill-advised venture. Neither side trusts the other to think that concessions are really warranted, and yet what does Indyk imagine Israel releasing terrorists was if not “gut-wrenching”? If Indyk can be so flippant about the pain caused by these murderers going free then he has either suspended all moral judgment or is completely indifferent to Israeli suffering; perhaps both.
Some recent comments that have been widely attributed to Indyk framed the Israelis for having allegedly wrecked the peace talks through settlement building. In his speech on Thursday evening it was Israeli settlements that Indyk was especially eager to condemn. Settlements, claimed Indyk, will “drive Israel into an irreversible binational reality.”
In one sense this claim is demonstrably nonsense. The limited settlement building that has taken place has been restricted to the major settlement blocs that the consensus holds would be annexed to Israel under any final-status agreement. Yet it is also true that many proponents of the settlement project see the role of the settlements as being to block the ceding of strategically important territory to a Palestinian state that might use that territory to attack Israel from—as has been the practice in territories already surrendered by Israel. Yet there is no necessary reason why Israeli annexation of the West Bank would end Israel as a Jewish state. True, if carried out right now it would likely create an almost ungovernable situation and present a severe challenge to Israeli democracy. But the claims about demography used by Indyk/Kerry/Obama to terrorize the Israelis are increasingly being called into question. Israeli birthrates have just overtaken those of Palestinians in the West Bank and with Jewish immigration into Israel up, and Palestinian emigration remaining high, the demographic catastrophe is by no means as imminent as Indyk sounds like he hopes it is.
Still the peace process has become totemic for many, and like Kerry, Indyk is among the most pious devotees to this obsession. And so, in the course of his speech, Indyk insisted that talks could be resumed, that there is still hope for an agreement between the two sides. As ever, it is always five minutes to midnight. For the last two decades the Indyks have been telling us, one more settlement expansion, one more suburban neighborhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem, and peace will be lost forever and Israel inevitably consigned to the history books. Who knows what any of this is based on? Such claims seem as fabricated as Indyk’s suggestion that since negotiations collapsed both sides have shown restraint. But since when did restraint include the Palestinians moving to bring Hamas into the government and pushing ahead with their applications to join international bodies in direct breach of the Oslo accords?
The gap between reality and the picture Indyk and Kerry paint has become so wide that one wonders how it doesn’t simply swallow them both.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
May 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM
All of this could have been avoided if Netanyahu strapped on a set and took care of business years ago.
May 10, 2014 at 12:19 AM
The road to destinations come with many forks. The forks we chose to take lead us to where we end up. There are forks we could have taken that would have landed us in a much different places/outcomes.
Alas, there is no turning back form the forks once taken and the destination they secured.
May 10, 2014 at 11:33 PM
This whole sad slippery slope for Israel began with Oslo when it first showed signs of weakness. Israel’s been back peddling ever since. The more it gave for “peace” the weaker it was preceived by its enemies. In that time frame Israel went from being the tough little country no one wanted to mess with, to now where all surrounding her take potshots whenever they see fit. In the Middle East the Stronge Horse wins the day. Funny Israel did no realize this!
May 10, 2014 at 11:49 PM
For those who question Obamas motives please read below. Perhaps Obama read General Eisenhower’s book!
On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces.
Eisenhower, a retired five-star Army general, the man who led the allies on D-Day, made the remarks in his farewell speech from the White House.
As NPR’s Tom Bowman tells Morning Edition co-host Renee Montagne, Eisenhower used the speech to warn about “the immense military establishment” that had joined with “a large arms industry.”
Here’s an excerpt:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”
Since then, the phrase has become a rallying cry for opponents of military expansion.
YouTube
Eisenhower gave the address after completing two terms in office; it was just days before the new president, John F. Kennedy, would be sworn in.
Eisenhower was worried about the costs of an arms race with the Soviet Union, and the resources it would take from other areas — such as building hospitals and schools.
Bowman says that in the speech, Eisenhower also spoke as someone who had seen the horror and lingering sadness of war, saying that “we must learn how to compose differences not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose.”
Another concern, Bowman says, was the possibility that as the military and the arms industry gained power, they would be a threat to democracy, with civilians losing control of the military-industrial complex.
In his remarks, Eisenhower also explained how the situation had developed:
“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.”
The difference, Bowman says, is that before the late 1950s, companies such as Ford built everything from jeeps to bombers — then went back to building cars. But that changed after the Korean War.
Bowman says that it’s important to note that during the Cold War, the U.S. military didn’t draw down its troops like it did after World War II.
“It kept a large standing army after the Korean War,” he says.
America’s new reliance on sophisticated weapons technology also helped bring about what Bowman calls “a technology race with the Soviets.”
And that meant that weapons manufacturing became more specialized.
“So [for] a company like Ford, going from cars to jeeps is one thing; cars to missiles is quite another,” Bowman says.
In an effort to control the expansion of the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower consistently sought to cut the Pentagon’s budget.
The former general wanted a budget the country could afford, Bowman says. He upset all the military services with his budget cuts, especially the Air Force.
Citing another quote from Eisenhower — this one from another speech on military spending — Bowman says, “The jet plane that roars overhead costs three quarters of a million dollars. That’s more than a man will make in his lifetime. What world can afford this kind of thing for long?”
In today’s government, Eisenhower has a fan in his fellow Kansan Secretary of Defense Robert Gates — who keeps a portrait of the former general in his office at the Pentagon, Bowman says.
Speaking at the Eisenhower Library last year, Gates talked about America’s insatiable appetite for more and more weapons:
“Does the number of warships we have, and are building, really put America at risk, when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined — 11 of which are our partners and allies?
Is it a dire threat that by 2020, the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?
These are the kinds of questions Eisenhower asked as commander-in-chief. They are the kinds of questions I believe he would ask today.”
But, Bowman says, it has only become more difficult to control the size of the nation’s military industry.
First, “there are only a handful of defense giants,” he says, “which means you can’t shop around for a better price.”
And companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are also adept at both lobbying and marketing to promote their interests.
Bowman says, “they also spread the jobs around the country, to lock in political support.”
Gates has also discussed the difficulty of cutting military spending:
“What it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices — choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon, and out.”
Bowman says that some industry observers believe that “the one thing that could create that political will is the nation’s huge deficit.” Only that might force cuts in the overall defense budget.
May 11, 2014 at 12:02 AM
No you have it people. Obama is not overseeing the demise of America, he’s saving America. It is written!
May 11, 2014 at 6:05 AM
The 21st Century will be nothing like the world has yet seen. The rise of technology and those who control it will change everything.
It is written!
May 12, 2014 at 4:42 AM
Wrapping it all up.
America will no longer be dragged into military engagements unless it’s immediate National interests are threatened. Obama’s leading from behind really means pushing others to deal with issues they, heretofore, automatically deferred to Uncle Sam. As General Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “The jet plane that roars overhead costs three quarters of a million dollars. That’s more than a man will make in his lifetime. What world can afford this kind of thing for long?”. America can no longer afford runaway military engagements and spending. For those out there who may questions Obama on military cutbacks, would you do the same for Eisenhower, a man who is uniquely qualified to see the big picture and score its implications.
May 12, 2014 at 3:33 PM
I have to say, I agree JP. In the last three wars in the Mideast, the US has 51,489 wounded to deal with, not to mention an additional 7,287 who lost their lives. Yes, we spend a lot of $$$, but the cost of losing these young men and women is priceless. If there’s one thing I can agree upon with Obama, it’s his steadfast reluctance to engage in yet another war. It’s time to end it all and bring our guys and gals home.
On the other hand, if our leaders cannot commit to a fight for victory, then why engage at all? Rules of engagement, collateral damage, limited strikes….all BS.
May 13, 2014 at 2:42 PM
Thanks LS, I foresee a truly golden age developing in America. Those seeing/calling its demise are sadly mistaken!
May 10, 2014 at 10:09 AM
It is truly amazing how American politicians are willfully ignorant. The failure to reach a deal is all the consequence of the quintessential fact that the Palestinians cannot abandon jihad because it is one of the basic tenets of their faith. Period.
A mini 5 + 1 question quiz for Secretary Kerry
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/a-mini-5-1-question-quiz-for-secretary.html
May 10, 2014 at 11:22 AM
Mladen Andrijasevic, you’ve hit the nail on the head, the problem is Islam. If anyone disagrees with that I have to ask them if they’ve actually read the Koran, or do they base their conclusions on the politically correct and false understanding of Islam that is presented by the main stream media.
May 10, 2014 at 12:00 PM
Why do we continue to torture ourselves by dragging ourselves through Indyk and Kerry’s spaghetti bowl of rationalizations. That’s all their so-called arguments are, smoke and mirrors, illusions, sand in our eyes meant to keep us from seeing what’s really going on.
What’s really going on is that Islam is the eternal mortal enemy of Israel, Saudi Arabia is Islamic, the Saudi’s and the Muslim Arab oil world wants the destruction of Israel, the Arabs with their oil money have bought Indyk and Kerry and the Saudi’s “white slaves”, Indyk and Kerry, do what the Saudi’s tell them to do, destroy Israel.
Indyk and Kerry want Israel to waste it’s time trying to unravel their sophistry, while all the time they are gradually backing Israel up to the edge of the cliff.