Israel Stupidly Adopts Biden Gas Plan. Tulsi Checks Out. Amb. Dore Gold Nixes 2 State Solution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuH_HfxXhas

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Israel Falls for Lebanon’s Treaty Bait-and-SwitchBy David SchenkerMy quip turned out to be prescient. Two years later, the states have reached an agreement on their offshore exclusive economic zone boundary that heavily favors Lebanon. During negotiations, mediated by the Biden administration, Israel conceded the entirety of its claims to the 330-square-mile zone to Lebanon in return for a 3-mile internationally recognized buffer zone adjacent to the shoreline. The remainder of the zone goes to Lebanon, which will also have the right to exploit a natural gas field known as Qana, which extends south of the frontier, and an obligation to remunerate Israel for the extracted gas there.The contours of the proposed deal are stunning. When I kicked off negotiations in October 2020, Israel was claiming a line running northwest from the border at Naqoura; Lebanon claimed a line running southwest from the same point. The lines outlining this disputed area—resembling a slice of pie roughly 70 nautical miles long, with the crust abutting the end of Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone—are known respectively as the “1” and “23” lines, filed long ago with the United Nations. As per the new agreement, Lebanon will attain virtually 100% of its initial negotiating position It’s a remarkable turn of events, especially given Beirut’s profound lack of leverage. The talks took place amid Lebanon’s deepening financial crisis, a man-made disaster that has since seen a more than 95% devaluation in the lira, a 20% decline of gross domestic product, and the impoverishment of 85% of the population. A maritime deal that could potentially generate substantial revenue for a failing state should have created a sense of urgency in Beirut for an agreement.Despite their weak hand, however, Lebanese negotiators won the day by employing a time-tested bait-and-switch negotiating tactic. Immediately after talks commenced, Lebanon changed its position, demanding an even larger exclusive economic zone. Beirut’s shift further south, to the “29” line, encompassed 550 square miles—a maximalist demand that led to a breakdown in the talks in the waning days of the Trump administration. When negotiations resumed during the Biden administration, the new Israeli government of Prime Minister Yair Lapid saw Lebanon’s readiness to return to the 23 line in return for the buffer zone as a significant concession.Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist organization, also played an important if indirect role in the talks. The organization has threatened to attack the Energean floating production system rig in Israel’s Karish field, south of the 23 line, if the ship started to extract gas prior to reaching an agreement on the maritime border. Before Hezbollah’s warning, Israel announced that pumping would start in September. In the absence of a deal, extraction didn’t commence.Notwithstanding the concessions, the Lapid government and many in Israel believe the agreement is beneficial. Most important, the Israel Defense Forces say it will de-escalate tensions with Hezbollah. Not only would a maritime settlement remove one point of friction with the group; it would create a mutuality of interests between Lebanon and Israel that might make another war less likely. An agreement would also effectively make Hezbollah and its Lebanese Christian allies—who blessed the deal—Israel’s business partners, breaking a taboo on future engagement.But the proposition that the maritime deal makes Israel safer or promotes prospects for normalization with yet another Arab State is dubious. An agreement may temporarily lower the temperature along the frontier, but with Iran upgrading its proxy’s arsenal of missiles and Hezbollah digging in along the border, another war appears inevitable. It’s difficult to imagine that Hezbollah won’t emerge from these negotiations emboldened by Israel’s decision to delay extraction, perhaps demonstrating undue flexibility to avoid another conflagration.The agreement is a mixed bag. The compromises Israel made demonstrate how far it will go to make peace with its Arab neighbors. It is an unprecedented positive step with Lebanon. Unfortunately, as long as Beirut remains a satrapy of Iran and dominated by its proxy, it’s unclear how any agreement—no matter how beneficial to Lebanon—will prevent the next Israel-Hezbollah war.Mr. Schenker is director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  And:

Surrendering Israel’s Maritime Waters/Gas Fields, Under Biden’s Pressure, is Illegal and Gives Terrorist Hezbollah BillionsZionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President Morton A. Klein released the following statementThe ZOA is appalled that temporary, “caretaker” unelected Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid and President Joe Biden yesterday announced “readiness” to move forward with an agreement on a maritime boundary between Israel and terrorist Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon. (See, e.g., “Statement by President Joe Biden on Breakthrough Diplomacy in the Middle East” and White House Readout of Biden-Lapid Call, Oct. 11, 2022.) If the agreement were any good, one would expect that details of the agreement would have been announced along with yesterday’s fanfare. But the White House and Yair Lapid were silent as to any specifics. Notably, terror group Hezbollah approved of the details of the deal – but the Israel and U.S. public are still being kept in the dark. As former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman tweeted yesterday: “I have one question: what are the specific terms of the deal?”We have one more question: Why is Lapid illegally denying the Israeli public and its elected representatives their lawful, democratic rights to vote on this deal? (See below.) The fact that Hezbollah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah approved the deal, while Lapid is illegally refusing to hold a required Knesset vote and national referendum, is a frightening indication that this is a terrible deal for Israel.Unfortunately, the agreement is believed to surrender to terrorist Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon the entire maritime territory demanded by terrorist Hezbollah/Lebanon twelve years ago - 854 square kilometers (330 square miles) of Mediterranean waters that belong to Israel, with valuable gas fields rights – and will enrich Iranian terror proxy Hezbollah by billions and billions of dollars. Biden and the U.S. “mediator” Amos Hochstein reportedly repeatedly pressured Israel to capitulate to Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon. The Hezbollah terrorists also ramped up the pressure with drone attacks on Israel’s unquestionable maritime territory – and Lapid caved. (See “Israel’s Devastating Capitulation to Hezbollah,” by Caroline Glick, JNS, Oct. 4, 2022.) Israel’s chief negotiator for the deal, Udi Aziri, resigned in protest over Israel’s capitulation to Biden’s pressure and terrorist Hezbollah’s threats.On October 1st, Lebanese President Michel Aoun (who reportedly is allied with Iran and Hezbollah) received a letter from U.S. “mediator” Amos Hochstein setting forth the proposed maritime border. The letter was not disclosed to the public. On the same day, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah – who was obviously informed of everything – lauded the deal on television – saying “Today, we reached a positive outcome.” If Hezbollah, which is dedicated to eradicating Israel, thinks that the deal is positive, that is a very bad sign.Senator Ted Cruz, (R-TX) tweeted, “I am deeply troubled that Biden officials pressured our Israeli allies to hand over their territory to the Iran-controlled terrorist group Hezbollah.”ZOA is particularly incensed that Yair Lapid is attempting to push this likely terrible deal through without the legal right or authority to do so, and in violation of Israel’s Basic Law – Israel’s equivalent of a constitution. As a temporary “caretaker” Prime Minister, Yair Lapid – who is facing an election in just two weeks (on November 1st) – has no legal right to make what is likely a disastrous agreement. Moreover, under Israel’s Basic Law: Referendum (2014), any agreement that causes Israeli law, jurisdiction or administration to no longer apply to territory in which they currently apply, must be approved by either: a majority of the Knesset plus a national referendum, or two-thirds (80 members) of the Knesset. However, as Caroline Glick’s article and others have revealed, Lapid and his attorney general are flaunting the rule of law, and trying to push this capitulation through without even a Knesset vote.Read More++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++When it comes from one of your own take notice:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Tulsi Gabbard leaving ‘elitist’ Democratic Party, blasts ‘cowardly wokeness’By Mark Moore Tulsi Gabbard scorned the Democrat party. Stephen YangFormer Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard announced she was leaving the party Tuesday — blasting the political organization as an “an elitist cabal” driven by “cowardly wokeness.”​”​I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue ​and stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms​ that are enshrined in our Constitution,” the Hawaii congresswoman said in a searing video posted on Twitter.She condemned the progressive party for being “hostile to people of faith and spirituality” while demonizing the police and protecting criminals “at the expense of law​-abiding Americans.”She then accused party leaders of weaponizing national security “to go after their political opponents, and above all, who are dragging us ever closer to ​nuclear war.​”​​Gabbard, who sought the Democratic nomination in 2020 before dropping out and endorsing Joe Biden’s candidacy, said she believes in a government “that’s of the people, by the people and for the people.”“Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party does not. Instead it stands for a government that is of, by, and for the powerful elite,” she said.Gabbard also addressed other disillusioned “common sense” Democrats — calling on them to follow her lead.“I’m calling on my fellow common sense, independent-minded Democrats to join me in leaving the Democratic Party,” she continued.“If you can no longer stomach the direction that the so-called woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country, and I invite you to join me.”++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dore spoke for me in Washington many years ago at an annual Washington Forum Program.
Why a two-state solution won’t work - opinionBy AMB DORE GOLDAnother problem that the terminology of the two-state solution generates is the expectation that if the Palestinians’ grievances are fully addressed and resolved.Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s support for the “two-state solution” during his UN General Assembly address re-opened the Israeli debate over the merits of this policy for the State of Israel. To recall, the two-state solution was never a part of the key documents that provided the diplomatic basis of the Arab-Israeli peace process in the past. It stands out that significant ministers in Mr. Lapid’s own government refrained from getting on the two-state bandwagon, including Defense Minister Benny Gantz.As ambassador Alan Baker, the former legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry during the Oslo years, has written, the two-state solution did not appear in UN Security Council Resolution 242, Resolution 338 or in the 1993 Oslo Accords, or in any of its multiple implementation agreements that were generated over the years.It sounds fair, which is why diplomats have been drawn to it, converting it into a diplomatic mantra. But however it sounds, the two-state solution is not drawn from binding legal commitments made by Israel in the past. To assume that is the case is both incorrect and even misleading.In October 1995, prime minister Yitzhak Rabin gave his final address to the Knesset weeks before he was assassinated. In the speech, he outlined what should be the components of a final peace settlement with the Palestinians. In retrospect, it now stands out that he did not make any reference to the two-state solution. His backing of Palestinian statehood by itself was at best lukewarm. Indeed, he spoke only about an entity which was, in his words, “less than a state.”Another problem that the terminology of the two-state solution generates is the expectation that if the Palestinians’ grievances are fully addressed and resolved, the wider Arab-Israel conflict will come to an end. Diplomats embraced the “two-state solution” as a kind of magic key that would solve the Arab-Israel conflict. There is no indication that this was ever true. Going back to 1948, at the time of the first Arab-Israel war, it would be fair to ask why did the Arab states at the time invade the nascent State of Israel in the first place.There is a school of thought among historians that each of the Arab states, back then, had its own particularistic aims for attacking Israel: Damascus was looking to establish a Greater Syria in the Levant, Amman hoped to reinforce its hold on the holy sites of Jerusalem after the Hashemites lost the holy sites of Islam that they once held in the Hijaz, and Cairo was looking to connect itself with the Mashreq – that portion of the Middle East that was located in West Asia – and by doing so avert becoming isolated in North Africa.But then what exactly happened between 1948 and 1967?If the considerations of the Palestinian Arabs were paramount for the Arab world then why wasn’t a Palestinian state established in Judea and Samaria during those years, when the Arab world had the chance because it already held those areas? True, the Palestinian Arabs tried briefly to set up a mini-state in the Gaza Strip, known as the All-Palestine Government, but it never acquired wider backing through international recognition. Its association with the Jerusalem mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Palestinian leader most visibly connected with Nazi Germany during the war, undermined the chances of the All-Palestine Government succeeding. Gaza remained an area under Egyptian military occupation until the Six-Day War.Today, Israel needs to design an approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that keeps in mind the true dimensions of the wider conflict today. The Arab-Israel conflict has resembled an accordion that can expand or contract according to international circumstances. In 1967, there was an Iraqi expeditionary force that sought to cross into Israel by cutting through Jordan. The conflict had grown. By 2022, Iraq was no longer the same strategic factor. And it was Iran that was recruiting Shi’ite militias from all over the Middle East and sending them mostly to Syria.Today there is a risk that if the two-state solution becomes popularized again, without justification, then Israel will come under rising international pressures to adhere to its terms, even if they do not apply. It risks stripping Israel of its right to secure boundaries which is an integral part of Resolution 242.  What recent events have demonstrated is that a very different Middle East has arisen. Diplomacy remains vital in this new period, but it will only yield results if it addresses the vital interests of the parties which engage in it. That is the lesson of the Abraham Accords, which produced four normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states. But right now, the two-state solution is just a nice-souing mantra that will lead diplomats off course. This should be the message of the State of Israel the next time an Israeli prime minister addresses the UN General Assembly.The writer is the president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He served as director-general of the Foreign Ministry and as its ambassador to the United Nations.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++https://www.jewishpress.com/news/middle-east/iran-news/iaea-iran-expanding-underground-uranium-enrichment/2022/10/11/++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++