Obama Digs In: No Compromise On Settlements or Roadmap
At the daily briefing today, State Department spokesman, Ian Kelly, was asked if there was room for compromise on the issue of a settlement freeze.
Here is Kelly's response. "We look forward to sitting down and talking about what can we do to move this process forward. In order to create this environment that will be conducive to resumptions of the negotiations, both sides need to comply with road map commitments....Freeze on all activity relating to settlements including natural growth is laid out very clearly. Working out the way to our resolution, I'm not going to say we're not going to compromise; we'll see what happens."
Note that last part. "Working out the way to resolution, I'm not going to say we're not going to compromise; we'll see what happens."
He seems to be saying that the US will compromise on settlements or "natural growth," but, in fact, he is saying the opposite. He says that first the freeze goes into effect, the Roadmap is complied with, and then "working our way to a resolution....we'll see what happens."
Perfect. The United States is telling Israel that we are open to discuss anything and even to compromise but not in advance of final status negotiations along the lines we favor, i.e. "our resolution."
In that context, we'll consider Israel's argument about natural growth or anything else it wants to discuss. But not in advance of those negotiations, not in advance of fulfillment of the terms of the Roadmap, and certainly not now.
For those worried that the President might blink, it looks like that worry is misplaced. I don't say you shouldn't worry. President Obama is getting serious pushback from the usual suspects. But today's statement indicates that he isn't backing down, quite the contrary.
NOTE ON PUSHBACK FROM NEOCONLAND: TNR owner Martin Peretz, who was a strong supporter of Obama in the primaries -- mainly because he feared Hillary was not, in fact, Golda Meir -- has now turned on Obama with all the fury he can muster. And it's enough that he actually reverts to German and calls Obama's aides nochleifers. I looked it up and I still dfon't know what it is but I do know that when neocons switch to German they aren't making paying compliments.
Peretz is an outlier, way to the right of AIPAC etc but his joining the Obama opposition is a sign of coming times. Obama is losing the far right of the Jewish community. That could mean that in 2012, he'll only get to 75% of the Jewish vote and not 78%. The Peretzites will stand with Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee or Newt Gingrich.
"That could mean that in 2012, he'll only get to 75% of the Jewish vote and not 78%."
Ain't that the truth!
June 29, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other news, up is down, it's morning in America, and hundreds of carpenters won't be constructing illegal houses "at an advanced stage of construction" in the West Bank, or at any stage of construction in East Jerusalem.
June 29, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a fourth bubble, never mentioned by Thomas Friedman...
You think this bubble fantasy, we're just going to let it grow?
Well, Suck. On. This.
June 29, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
@MJ - Good post but "nochleifer" is not German. You must be mistaken. Maybe "Nachläufer" - a kind of push broom, thus perhaps referring to someone sweeping up? Did not know that neocons were known for casting insults in German, btw.
June 29, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beg to differ on that. A Nachleufer is someone who chases after someone...or say follows someone so for example "Die Maedche nachleufen" means chasing after girls. So maybe Peretz means that Obama's advisors are chasing after or following Obama.
But the gist of it is I think "fellow traveler" as in "Mitleufer".
In either case, we both agree that it is neither correct spelling in German or Yiddish
June 30, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
or Nacheifer? Someone who emulates? But whom do they emulate I wonder?
June 29, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was "nochloifer," suggesting Yiddish. Perez used it once before in an article on the end of Kofi Annan's tenure. In context, it sounds like he is referring to hangers=on, camp followers. The spelling suggests a variation on the first word, with an umlaut.
June 29, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Noch" prefix in German and Yiddish means "also" or "still" and "Leufer"/ “Loifer” means walker or traveler, so a generous interpretation would lead us to my original "fellow Traveler" interpretation. So Peretz might be trying to say that these aids are fellow travelers of the anti Likud faction.
Could not find Nochloifer in Yiddish, but it might be one of those expressions that hasn't made it to the dictionary yet.
June 30, 2009 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievable.
Had MJ actually read Peretz's post past the first two sentences, he would have realized that most of it has virtually nothing to do with Israel. Peretz is upset that Obama has not been more forceful about the Iranian uprising and thinks that Iranians will resent that the US is not more supportive. It's hardly a radical viewpoint even if it's mistaken in my opinion.
And "all the fury he can muster?" Please. The post drips with contempt, but then every post Peretz writes drips with contempt - when he's not name-dropping about this or that person who used to be his student at Harvard. But fury?
Why does anyone take MJ Rosenberg seriously when he can't even get the basic facts right about the subjects of his posts?
June 29, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a clever interpreter than I am, MJ, if you can extract any clear meaning from Kelly's cryptic gobbledygook.
June 29, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has the Obama administration issued any statement of the situation regarding the standoff between the Spirit of Humanity and the Israeli Navy? What is the administration doing to protect American citizens in international waters?
http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news
June 29, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
nochleifers I think is a misspelling of a German word. (It might be misspelled Yiddish, but I doubt it).
What he should have used is mitliefer which roughly translates as "fellow traveler" (literally 'mit' means “with” and 'liefer' means "deliverable" as in "Sofort liefbar” (trans English to) deliverable immediately. So ‘mitliefbar’ is one of those endlessly abundant German constructions of noun modifications like "hochgestelterundklugereampte" (highly placed and intelligent employee)
Noch means "also" and "leifer" has to be a misspelling of liefer (which is a common mistake to reverse the e and the i). It is just a guess but I would be very curious if Mr Peretz agrees with me on this.
June 30, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
that should actually read"Hochgestelterklugergeampter"
June 30, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Peretz family is originally from Dutch Ostfriesland (Oostfreesland) on the borders of Holland and North-Western Germany where it is mainly Reformed Protestantism. The word 'nochloifer' is used to denote a position whereby a dissenting minority in the East Friesland legislature were able to control state foreign policy by paying huge sums of money to Legislative Council Members who in turn passed laws favorable to their paymasters. The result was that the majority of the electorate were in effect disenfranchised. This position pertained for about 60 years until eventually the wealthy minority who so corrupted the democratic process were executed and their heads stuck on poles outside the city gates where the general populace used to pelt them with smoked salmon bagels.
June 30, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "The Peretzites will stand with Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee or Newt Gingrich."
MY COMMENT: Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee or Newt Gingrich will be their 'just deserts'!
REFERENCE - http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/just-deserts.html
June 30, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. "Bon appétit", as Julia Child often chirped.
June 30, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "TNR owner Martin Peretz, who was a strong supporter of Obama in the primaries..."
MY QUESTION: Did Peretz support Obama even before Giuliani 'bit the dust' in the Florida primary?
June 30, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling Obama's aides nochleifers is saying that the aides (here comes a wild guess) are sucking up to those of us who prize a two-state solution ahead of the wants of the settlers.
June 30, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No NO we all got this wrong even Peretz. It took my 90 year old mother to figure it out: the word he wanted to use is Nachläufer which means someone who follows a certain political ideology. Vaguely a fellow traveler as I said except the word is "nach" and "läufer". what threw all of us off was the umlaut so that "nachlaufer does not yield any result except someone who chases skirts ( I think)
July 1, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm. In my mother tongue political terminology was more often borrowed from Russian than German. Thus "fellow traveler" would be "poputchik". After translating and re-translating I get something that can mean "useful idiot" or "opportunist hanger on".
HOWEVER, it makes little sense to apply such an epithet to aids of the President. Poputchik, idiot or just an opportunist, is an outsider, and these guys are insiders. One could use a term "apparatchiki". Unless...
Unless they are Jews who forgot where their loyalty should be. Perhaps Hofjude would be a good term? That term was associated with handling the finances of the state, like Geithner.
June 30, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "...Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee or Newt Gingrich..."
MY COMMENT: Don't rule out Gov. Mark "Sparky" Stanford!
June 30, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant Sanford rather than Stanford!
June 30, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, there's one question that bothers me for quite a while as an Israeli outsider to these debates - if the Jewish community is so liberal and so pro-peace as you say it is, why the hell does it contribute so much money to AIPAC, which has positioned itself as an anti-peace, pro-settlements branch of the Likkud? Very few organizations managed to do so much harm to peace efforts as AIPAC, and yet equivalent pro-peace lobbies never manged to even get close to its money and influence. Can anyone here shed some light on this please?
July 1, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a little complex. The majority of Jewish Americans have a taught attitude that it is their duty to support Israel as a Jewish homeland that was established after great effort over many years to be an ultimate sanctuary for any Jewish family anywhere in the world who finds themselves the subject of discrimination or worse. They believe as a group that the Zionist project is genuine, good, moral and altruistic.
As a group and individually, they are blind to the reality of what has happened to Herzl's magnificent dream of just a hundred years ago, of a Jewish homeland based on co-operation and co-existence with the indigenous peoples of Palestine. They are blind to the killing and oppression that is now the norm by macho soldiers who have been taught that Arabs are inferior and not worthy of life or water or freedom.
This blindness is difficult to explain but probably emanates from an innate desire to be part of an ethnic group and being frightened to voice their concerns at the crimes being committed in their name. However, many are, astonishingly, prepared to believe the blatant propaganda put out by the Israeli Foreign Ministry notwithstanding that it plainly does not stand scrutiny. That situation is compounded by the fact that the US government has for decades supported Israel and Israeli policies vis a vis the indigenous people, indiscriminately.
Just a few months ago, the IDF slaughtered over 300 children in Gaza on the pretext that they were a threat to the massive nuclear backed Israeli army - AND THE US AND THE WORLD REMAINED SILENT in the face of this war crime.
So the average American Jew goes along with a position that is not only untenable in the long run but is an obscenity in this day and age.
July 1, 2009 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Adenauer, disregard most of what GD river says.
What he/she offered are a lot of generalizations and opinions about American Jews, and not many facts.
The question of why so-called liberal and dovish American Jews contribute so much to AIPAC assumes that its underlining statement is true, which I'm sure it isn't. Where are the facts? Does AIPAC not get a lot of money from corporate benefactors, foundations and non-profits, and from ultra-rich individuals, some like casino magnate Adelson who happen to be Jewish? I'm willing to bet that most of AIPAC's money doesn't come from the Cohens down the street. American Jews don't tithe to AIPAC and other nefarious and mythical organizations.
And this also obscures that this very blog by MJR, J Street, APN, etc. are all Jewish and pro-Israel, but critical of excesses and the Likudnik line. You can't paint the entire Jewish community the color of Liberman, Adelson, Peretz, etc. while neglecting the overwhelming majority of Jews who don't act or think like them.
But a FACT is that 75-80% of American Jews have voted for Democratic presidents, even voting against George W. Bush who is easily the most "pro-Israel" (I put it in quotes cuz I don't think his policies really helped Israel or anyone else) president ever and for Obama (reasonably pro-Israel) against the Israel-can-do-no-wrong-McCain. And look at the Senate: Israel's most staunch defenders are not Feinstein, Feinberg, Levin & Lautenberg, but Kyl, Imhofe, DeMint, and other rightwing Republicans.
So what am I saying:
-Israel's support is bipartisan and religiously, racially and regionally diverse in the U.S. So are its critics.
-I don't think there's any doubt that American Jews generally support Israel, but that does not mean they support all of its policies or that it's the only issue they care about it.
-Finally, what if American Jews were more animated about Israel than other issues? I don't hear anyone calling Americans of Cuban, Armenian, Palestinian, Mexican, or of Eastern European descent traitors when they support their ethnic/religous brethren, even when those policies put the U.S. in a bind. (like the genocide resolution, Cuban embargo, admitting Baltic countries in NATO, etc.)
July 1, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
GD river and Rarry Owen, thank you both for your answers. Garry, I do apologize if my comment insinuated unfair generalization of the Jewish community in the US - you comment is of course to the point.
July 1, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to hand it to that Marty Peretz. Insulting people with obscure, indecipherable German nouns is such an effective way to shape the public debate.
There goes the Yiddish vote, I guess.
July 1, 2009 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
We were all wrong. It took my 90 year old mother to figure it out. The word should be Nachläufer (notice the a with the umlaut) which means political follower. In this case political followers of Obama-style Aussenpolitik
July 1, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Perfect. The United States is telling Israel that we are open to discuss anything and even to compromise but not in advance of final status negotiations along the lines we favor, i.e. "our resolution." "
When I read this teaser on the front page of TPM, trying to decide whether or not to read this column, I was incredibly confused. I assumed (incorrectly, it turns out) that the above sentence was sarcasm, that the writer Rosenberg was disgusted with the Obama hard line, satirizing it by messaging that Obama favored negotiations only if the resolutions were a foregone conclusion.
This is poor editing. As someone who doesn't read your column on a regular basis. I thought YOU were the neocon, at first...sorry, but someone needs to tell you. I'll bet I'm not the only reader who got fooled by that, however temporarily.
July 2, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink