Indyk: a disastrous choice for mediator…writes Isi Leibler

July 26, 2013 by Isi Leibler
Read on for article

The US State Department has floated a trial balloon to test the idea of former US Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, serving as mediator in the forthcoming peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It is not surprising that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has signaled his approval. What is incomprehensible is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has done likewise.

Isi Leibler

Isi Leibler

Unfortunately the prospect of genuine progress in the negotiations is extraordinarily slim. There is no evidence that the Palestinian Authority will compromise on a single issue. In the unlikely event that the weak, corrupt President Abbas does make even a single concession, his Fatah supporters will immediately topple him.

Nonetheless, an “honest broker” is essential to the process. However, Martin Indyk is not that broker. His track record in presiding over previous peace negotiations indicates that if re-appointed, he will, in all probability, direct negotiations in a manner to ensure that Israel will be blamed for their failure.

Indyk has had an impressive political career. Educated in Australia, he moved to the US where he joined AIPAC and subsequently held executive positions at prestigious Washington, DC think-tanks (Executive Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution). He also has assumed key political positions (Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs in the Clinton administration). After becoming a naturalized US citizen, President Clinton appointed him US Ambassador to Israel – the first foreign born and first Jew to hold the position. He served two terms, from April 1995 to September 1997 and from January 2000 to July 2001.

Indyk’s rise in the political arena has been ascribed to his talent of adjusting to the prevailing political climate of the Democratic leadership. When President Obama was elected, Indyk aligned himself with the new leader, and enthusiastically participated in Obama’s Israel-bashing and Netanyahu-snubbing. He was unsparing and, at times, vicious in his criticism of our Prime Minister, and laid the bulk of the blame on Netanyahu for the breakdown in Israeli-Palestinian relations.

He has moved further and further to the left as his career unfolded. He served as International Chair of the New Israel Fund, an organization that has repeatedly been castigated for funding rabid anti-Zionist and anti-Israel NGOs, including several organizations that compiled distorted and false information for the notorious Goldstone Report accusing the IDF of engaging in war crimes.

Aside from occasional lip service to their failings, Indyk became an aggressive apologist for the Palestinians and at one stage even identified himself with those defending Arafat’s rebuff of Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s extreme concessions at Camp David.

Indyk has made outrageous claims about Israel’s de-stabilizing effect on the Middle East, and the need for Israel’s to bend to the will of the United States, threatening, “If Israel is a superpower and does not need $3 billion in military assistance and protection, and [does not require] the efforts of the US to isolate and pressure Iran, then go ahead and do what you like. If you need the US, then you need to take American interests into account… Israel has to adjust its policy to the interest of the United States or there will be serious consequences.”

He has also made the obscene charge that it was Israeli intransigence that contributed to US military casualties in Afghanistan, accusing Israel of endangering “a vital security interest of the United States.” The “intransigence” he was alluding to was the settlement construction then taking place in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

He stooped even lower when he stated that Prime Minister Netanyahu should take into account that President Obama was obliged to write 30-40 condolence letters a week. To climax his antagonistic attitude towards Israel, in 2010 Indyk publicly urged Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government to cede the Golan Heights to Syria.

Indyk frequently invokes the memory of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who he refers to as “Israel’s greatest strategic thinker.” But Rabin would have undoubtedly rejected an American spokesman or diplomat with the chutzpah to make the demands on Israel as made by Indyk. He would have dismissed him for his lack of respect for Israel’s sovereignty and his treatment of it as a vassal state. Certainly, Rabin would never have endorsed Indyk’s calls to divide Jerusalem and to make unilateral territorial concessions.

Most of us continue to dream of peace. However, we recognize that with the current chaos and violence in the region, the likelihood of moving forward with a peace “partner” who sanctifies murder and engages in vicious incitement is almost a mirage. Yet to demonstrate our commitment to leave no stone unturned in our desire for peace, we have succumbed to pressure and unfortunately compromised the rights of terror victims and their families, by releasing hundreds of mass murderers as a “goodwill gesture” to sit at the negotiating table.

Yet the extraordinary lengths to which we will go for the sake of peace will not move us forward if the US mediator is an American Jew, whose recent track record is indistinguishable from that of J Street in seeking to pressure Israel to make unilateral concessions. That such a politically jaundiced Jew is being proposed for this role is cause for grave concern.

Prime Minister Netanyahu would be well advised to bite the bullet now and resist pressure to accept Indyk as mediator. Otherwise, we will once again be accused of intransigency and inflexibility, if not the cause of an upsurge in violence that President Abbas has already threatened should his demands go unmet.


2 Responses to “Indyk: a disastrous choice for mediator…writes Isi Leibler”
  1. Paul Winter says:

    Isi is right about Indyk. But just a few more points about him. He was a member of North Shore Temple Emanuel and he was an ardent Zionist when he was still married to Jill Collier. He was an Australian and while he was a US ambassador to Israel, he is now an associate of the Brookings Institution which has a branch in Doha, Qatar and as Isi notes he is on the NIF baord.

    He was a lot of things, but now seems married to certain ideologies. Expecting Indyk to be pro-Israeli would be too much, but is it unrealistic to even imagine that he could be even-handed. He is very much like Peres: a has-been who is too full of himself to realise that he is well beyond his used-by date.

  2. Gil Solomon says:

    Netanyahu has turned into a confused individual who is simply bereft of the faintest notion of the real political orientation of any representatives sent by this abomination called the Obama administration. Isi, has he no advisors capable of doing background checks?

    Indyk is a typical left wing Israel bashing Jewboy from way back and for Netanyahu to agree to his appointment as mediator turns my stomach. Israel not only lacks any Hasbara skills but its foolish actions will put it on the road to suicide.

    What has happenned to Likud?
    Even forgetting about political parties, what has happenned to Israeli leadership?

    Shame on me that there was once a time many many years ago that I actually admired Netanyahu. Not anymore.

    Netanyahu goes into this peace negotiations with not even the precondition that the Arabs cease immediately the indoctrination of their children in hate.
    He stated recently that he needs the conflict with the Palestinians resolved as “we don’t want a binational state”. The very concept of a binational state means at its core the termination of the Jewish state, so why even entertain this comment? This is surely another sign of pathetic Israeli weakness.

    In relation to the furore over settlements, below is a direct quote from comments recently made by Melanie Phillips that Netanyahu should take serious note of.
    “This is an act of malevolence. But the fault in large measure surely lies with Israel. For although some may find this incomprehensible, Israel does not make to the world the one case that matters – why Israelis are fully entitled UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW to build homes in these territories; and exactly how Britain, the EU and the UN have grossly mis-stated and misapplied that international law.
    Instead, Israel merely protests that the EU move will inhibit a peace settlement. Which it undoubtedly will. But it will do so principally by upending law, truth and justice – a case Israel never makes in public, thus allowing the irrational hatred of Israel in the west, fed by racist lies and propaganda, to spread its poison unchecked”.

    I wonder who will Netanyahu now pick as the Israeli negotiator.
    God save Israel if it is Shimon Peres or anyone with a similar political orientation.
    This would be the last nail in the coffin.

    Isi, as you are over there, is there any way you could somehow be put forward as an advisor to this Government?

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments