Monday, September 8, 2014

Alarming Story ~ NY Times "Outs" Anti-Israel Negotiator

Forward by Norman E. Hooben
Note: If you are an average voter it may take two or three readings for you to interpret this...that's why you are an average voter.  If you are a Democrat voter you may never be able to interpret this...that's why you are a Democrat.  If you are a republican voter it may still take a couple of readings to interpret this but you will get it...that's why you are a Republican.  If you are a Conservative voter you will not only interpret this after one read, you'll understand all of its implications...that's why you are a Conservative.

Ask the average American, “Who is Martin Indyk?” and you’ll get a lot of, “Who?” right back.  Well I don’t really know the guy myself, but I do know this… Martin Indyk is an inside friend of those on the left who want nothing less than a one world government.  His friends, Bill and Hillary Clinton are top contenders in this never ending quest to destroy individualism but that’s another story.

When you read about the left’s history and their plans for their new world order you will come across the words, “like-minded individuals”.  Succinctly put by Professor D. L. Cuddy, Ph.D., in his Chronological History of the New World Order, “…it is a "networking" of like-minded individuals in high places to achieve a common goal.”  Martin Indyk is as like-minded as those in power who plucked him.  Using a quote from radio talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh you’ll get what I mean; “You see, if you amount to anything in Washington these days, it is because you have been plucked or handpicked from an Ivy League school -- Harvard, Yale, Kennedy School of Government -- you've shown an aptitude to be a good Ivy League type, and so you're plucked so-to-speak, and you are assigned success. You are assigned a certain role in government somewhere, and then your success is monitored and tracked, and you go where the pluckers and the handpickers can put you.”

Indyk did not attend any of the schools mentioned above although he has a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney (Australia, where he was raised).  And if you read what amounts to be a résumé in Wikiepedia you would think that he is pro Jewish; after all, he was born a Jew, why not…  But like all the like-minded friends of his he has the ability to hide any disdain for his ancestry’s homeland.  That is until he has a few drinks…then the truth comes out.

This was a headline this past May over at the Washington Free Beacon, “Indyk Caught Bashing Israel at Hotel Bar”; an excerpt from the article follows:

Middle East envoy Martin Indyk was overheard at an upscale Washington, D.C., bar bashing Israel and fully blaming it for the recent failure of peace talks with the Palestinians, according to an individual who overheard the conversation and described it as a surprising and “nasty” 30-minute-long tirade against the Jewish state.
Indyk—who has been identified by the Washington Free Beacon as the source of a recent series of anonymous quotes in the press condemning Israel—was caught openly lashing out at Israel over drinks with several members of his staff and wife, Gahl Burt.

Now how the like-minded crowd gets to know who to pluck is obviously a like-minded thing…it takes one to know one mentality.  Secretary of State John Kerry is one who knows one.  Kerry knew that when Indyk was an ambassador he lost his security clearance for improperly handling sensitive material. The first ambassador to ever lose a security clearance!  Kerry picked Indyk as a special peace envoy to negotiate peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  The idea that the Palestinians will negotiate peace with Israel is in itself a joke.  It will never happen.  Palestinians hate Jews from the moment of birth…and forever!  What makes matters worse in this peace process is that the United States has always taken the position that Israel is an ally while Kerry and Indyk betray that process and take sides with our enemy.
Read more about Indyk and Kerry here: (should set off some alarms)

Post Script: See if you can find another reference to 'like-minded' here.

Now for the story that got me to write the above:
From The Lid
NY Times "Outs" Anti-Israel U.S. Negotiator Martin Indyk As Being On Payroll of Qatar
Martin S. Indyk friend of Bill and Hillary, who was hired by John Kerry to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians (even though he does not like the Jewish state) was “outed” by the New York Times on Saturday. You see Indyk has a conflict of interest working on the Middle East conflict and being vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institute, which is getting large donations from Qatar a country known to be huge donor to terrorist groups including Hamas.

Indyk has been accused of being downright nasty toward Israel in public and even
worse in private.

Times reports that Qatar who provides funding to ISIS and Hamas (and gives sanctuary to Hamas leaders) agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world.

German Development Minister Gerd Muller said last month:
You have to ask who is arming, who is financing ISIS troops? The key word there is Qatar - and how do we deal with these people and states politically.
Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that continues to undermine regional stability,” Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen told the Center for New American Security on "Confronting New Threats in Terrorist Financing" in March. “Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria. To say the least, this threatens to aggravate an already volatile situation in a particularly dangerous and unwelcome manner."

This is who was paying part of Martin Indyk's salary.
In interviews, top executives at the think tanks strongly defended the arrangements, saying the money never compromised the integrity of their organizations’ research. Where their scholars’ views overlapped with those of donors, they said, was coincidence.

“Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Martin S. Indyk.
Indyk's feeling's about Israel overlaps that of the Hamas supporting Qatar. Perhaps he always felt that way but I am sure the financial gains from Qatar reinforce that feeling. The fact that he has the relationship with Qatar is at the very least a conflict of interest.
Scholars at other Washington think tanks, who were granted anonymity to detail confidential internal discussions, described similar experiences that had a chilling effect on their research and ability to make public statements that might offend current or future foreign sponsors. At Brookings, for example, a donor with apparent ties to the Turkish government suspended its support after a scholar there made critical statements about the country, sending a message, one scholar there said.

“It is the self-censorship that really affects us over time,” the scholar said. “But the fund-raising environment is very difficult at the moment, and Brookings keeps growing and it has to support itself.”

The sensitivities are especially important when it comes to the Qatari government — the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings.

Brookings executives cited strict internal policies that they said ensure their scholars’ work is “not influenced by the views of our funders,” in Qatar or in Washington. They also pointed to several reports published at the Brookings Doha Center in recent years that, for example, questioned the Qatari government’s efforts to revamp its education system or criticized the role it has played in supporting militants in Syria.

But in 2012, when a revised agreement was signed between Brookings and the Qatari government, the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself praised the agreement on its website, announcing that “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones.” Brookings officials also acknowledged that they have regular meetings with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities and budget, and that the former Qatar prime minister sits on the center’s advisory board.
Mr. Ali, who served as one of the first visiting fellows at the Brookings Doha Center after it opened in 2009, said such a policy, though unwritten, was clear.
“There was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” said Mr. Ali, who is now a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. “It was unsettling for the academics there. But it was the price we had to pay.”
Sounds like the country funding Hamas had a word or two to say to the guy who was supposed to be a neutral negotiator in the Israeli/PA talks.
There is no indication that the State Department was aware of this arraignment before selecting Indyk to work on the peace talks. However Kerry was a strong supporter of getting Qatar involved in the talks with Hamas, a stance that did not make Egypt, the P.A., or Israel happy.
On the other hand Indyk's anti-Israel stance is not that much different than other progressives including his good friend Hillary Clinton, so it's difficult to discern which came first, the hatred or the cash.
See also:
Will Hillary Clinton make a difference?
If you are an average voter it may take two or three viewings for you to interpret this...that's why you are an average voter.  If you are a Democrat voter you may never be able to interpret this...that's why you are a Democrat. If you are a republican voter it may still take a couple of viewings to interpret this but you will get it...that's why you are a Republican. If you are a Conservative voter you will not only interpret this after one viewing, you'll understand all of its implications...that's why you are a Conservative.

1 comment:

Ben said...

POS in a septic tank.