Let’s start with this from the Times of Israel:
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants nothing more to do with American diplomat Martin Indyk, who announced his resignation Friday as US special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, an Israeli TV report said Friday night.
The reason behind Netanyahu’s statement?
It said that the Israeli prime minister’s displeasure with Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, stemmed less from the US envoy’s role in the collapsed peace talks, and more from his comments in the weeks since those talks fell apart in April. Netanyahu feels Indyk placed disproportionate blame on Israel for the failure of the US-led nine-month peace effort, overly highlighting Netanyahu’s settlement-building activity, and neglected to emphasize the Palestinian role in the collapse of the negotiations.
But it appears there is more of a back story. This is from Seth Mandel in Commentary:
Years ago while planning out a story on Israel’s Labor Party, I called a former Clinton administration official who had been part of the White House’s Mideast diplomatic team. He declined to comment, saying he simply doesn’t talk about Israeli domestic politics. I was surprised but understood. Yet I couldn’t figure out quite why I was surprised until I saw a different U.S. official, Martin Indyk, talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Indyk, who the AP reports is now resigning from President Obama’s Mideast team, had the opposite policy of the official I had called seeking comment. Indyk never hesitated to prattle on about Israeli domestic politics to any reporter who would listen. I was reminded of this when Indyk was universally identified as the source for bitter complaints about Israel to the Israeli press after Indyk failed miserably as the Obama administration’s peace envoy. As Elder of Ziyon noted, Indyk’s meddling in domestic Israeli politics while working for Bill Clinton was so egregious and out of control that Knesset member Uzi Landau lodged an official complaint with Clinton over it in 2000, writing:
In addition to his remarks concerning Jerusalem, Ambassador Indyk offered his views regarding secular-religious tensions in Israel and the role of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism. He also intimated his tacit support for Prime Minister Barak’s so-called secular revolution. As a commentator in the liberal daily Ha’aretz noted, “readers are urged to imagine what the Americans would say if the Israeli ambassador to Washington were to come to a local religious institution and say such things.”
You can perhaps better appreciate the gravity of Indyk’s behavior by noting it was Ha’aretz that carried the criticism.
Mr Indyk comes across as an arrogant dickhead.
Seth Mandel’s article – which I encourage you to read – includes this condemnation of the man:
Not only did Indyk not know the basic truth about Israeli policy, but he admitted he couldn’t even understand it. When the facts conflicted with his prejudiced preconceptions, he couldn’t process the information.
Which may be why several commentators are joining Seth Mandel in reporting Indyk’s departure as a boost to the chances of peace in the Middle East!
Question: is it possible Obama’s performance in foreign policy for the USA has been so bad – in my view, objectively and indisputably bad for the USA – because his advisers are all of a similar type to Indyk? Arrogant? Ignorant? Prejudiced?
Frightening, isn’t it?