[...] Most inaccurate of all, and most bizarre, is Carter’s claim that “a total freeze of settlement expansion is the key” to a peace agreement. Not a halt to terrorism, not the building of Palestinian institutions, not the rule of law in the West Bank, not the end of Hamas rule in Gaza — no, the sole “key” is Israeli settlements. – Elliott Abrams
It’s really difficult for me to take Mr. Abrams seriously when he continues to posit that the end of Hamas rule in Gaza is not only a prerequisite for equilibrium, but is remotely tied to Middle East reality. Taking on Jimmy Carter’s Sunday op-ed, Abrams goes all out. Wonder if Mr. Abrams remembers George W. Bush’s role in handing Hamas their mantle? Never mind that Abrams doesn’t deal with Pres. Obama’s recent “regrets” remarks on Netanyahu’s decision to approve more settlements.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s statement today that settlement freeze is a “national necessity” made Abrams look like an even bigger fool.
But the better question is why the Washington Post is using a convicted Iran-Contra neoconservative to rebut former Pres. Carter. Even considering I still blame Carter for giving me nowhere to go in 1980, his post presidency has been a Nobel Prize winning tour de force, starting with being one of the most public voices willing to tell truth to power on the Palestinians’ plight.
Meanwhile, Bibi’s boy Abrams gets some help from the WSJ who decides to push the panic button.
… Already, cracks are starting to show within his governing coalition, which includes staunchly pro-settler politicians alongside ministers from the more dovish Labor Party. At Monday’s pro-settler rally, convened at the site of a controversial proposed settlement outside Jerusalem, Minister of Infrastructure Uzi Landau publicly denounced the government’s steps to restrict building in the West Bank. Mr. Landau said he remained a loyal member of Mr. Netanyahu’s government, but warned the prime minister that “you can only pull the rope so far before it breaks.” [...]
Comments are closed.