"We are deeply disappointed that Israel insists on continuing this pattern of provocative action. These repeated announcements and plans of new construction run counter to the cause of peace. Israel's leaders continually say that they support a path towards a two-state solution, yet these actions only put that goal further at risk."
It's provocative to issue building permits on land that will be part of a Jewish state even after a peace agreement? Also, from what I can tell, both Jewish and Arab Israeli citizens would be allowed to live there so it wouldn't be discriminatory. Unlike Palestinian policy which even gives the death sentence for selling to Jews.
If this was the only instance, I'd probably just chock it up to the usual idiocy from this administration. But of course, there is more as Obama seems likely to nominate the anti-semitic, anti-Israel Chuck Hagel. Here is his record (h/t Israel Matzav who is quoting the National Jewish Democratic Council):
In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.
In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yassir Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.
In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative elections.
In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.
And remember when Hezbollah attacked Israel and kidnapped its soldiers, sparking a second Lebanon war? Guess which side Hagel was on:
"How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend -- the country and people of Lebanon -- is going to enhance America's image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East?"
No wonder Iran is excited by the prospect of his nomination. If you were anti-Israel you probably couldn't have found a better choice to be Secretary of Defense. He's a Republican and a former Senator so it would be hard to get enough Republican votes in the Senate to kill his nomination.
Then of course is the refusal of the Obama administration to stop the upgrade of the Palestinians in the UN. As Caroline Glick wrote:
Obama enabled the Palestinians to get their non-member state status at the UN by failing to threaten to cut off US funding to the UN in retaliation for such a vote.Both Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush issued such threats during their tenures in office and so prevented the motion from coming to a vote. Given that the Palestinians have had an automatic majority in the General Assembly since at least 1975, the only reason their status was only upgraded in 2012 is because until then, either the PLO didn't feel like raising the issue or the US threatened to cut off its financial support to the UN if such a motion passed. This year PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas said he wanted to have a vote and Obama responded by not issuing a threat to cut off UN funding. So the Palestinians got their vote and, as expected, it passed overwhelmingly.Seeing the upgrade as a Palestinian move is a mistake. It was a joint Palestinian-American move.
And even if you aren't so pro-Israel as I am, these moves should really scare you. As Danielle Pletka at AEI testified:
[O]ne of the most interesting things that you hear from Gulf leaders is their shock at the gap that had opened up between Israel and the United States over recent years. They view that as a barometer of American friendship and loyalty. If you won't stand by Israel, how can we trust you to stand by us against Iran? And the answer is, of course, that they don't.
This won't end well.