Sunday, March 18th | 2 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

November 15, 2015 4:14 am

Martin Indyk’s Latest Low

avatar by Ruthie Blum

Email a copy of "Martin Indyk’s Latest Low" to a friend
Martin Indyk was dispatched to Israel as an envoy to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.. Photo: Robert D. Ward via Wikimedia Commons.

Martin Indyk was dispatched to Israel as an envoy to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.. Photo: Robert D. Ward via Wikimedia Commons.

Just when you thought you’d heard it all from professional peace promoter Martin Indyk, he goes and one-ups himself. The ability to do so when the policies he has espoused over the decades have consistently backfired is an accomplishment in and of itself. And it explains why he was appointed twice to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel and also filled the role of assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs.

Indyk, author of Innocent Abroad: An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East, has always held the position that an accord is possible between Israel and the Palestinians — if the “two sides” would only trust one another. This, of course, is why he was a perfect fit for Secretary of State John Kerry, under whom he was dispatched to Israel as an envoy to broker a deal.

Well, that didn’t work out so well, and he quit after nine months to return to his full-time job as director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. He, like many peace processers, feels more at home presenting global strategies in a think tank than confronting the need for actual tanks in the real Middle East the rest of us occupy.

This is not to say that Indyk is uncomfortable in Israel. On the contrary, he loves visiting the country where he is treated like a king by the chattering classes, while enjoying a cappuccino or two from balconies overlooking the Mediterranean.

So it was no surprise that he attended the Israel Conference on Peace, hosted by the left-wing daily Haaretz at Tel Aviv’s David Intercontinental Hotel this week, to wow the crowd with regurgitated slogans about why war keeps getting in the way of their aspirations for — you know — peace.

That he attributed this to Israeli intransigence was to be expected. His call on the public to grasp that a two-state solution is the only viable path — and that the Palestinians would be true “partners” if only Israel would withdraw from more territory — was also cause for a yawn, as was his dig at the Netanyahu government.

“To allow your leaders to convince you that you are victims and have to live by the sword is to give way to hopeless future for your people,” he said, repeating a line he has been spouting for years, and adding a lie for good measure: “The creeping annexation of land which is continuing apace will make it impossible” to come to an agreement with the PA.

His failure to remember that Israel relinquished most of the land in question to the Palestinians, whose response was and continues to be to slaughter Jews, was par for the course. Indeed, nobody mentioned the irony of the fact that last year’s Haaretz peace conference was interrupted by air raid sirens as Hamas fired rockets into Tel Aviv from Gaza, territory from which Israel had forcibly yanked out all Jews in 2005; and this year’s gathering was taking place amid Palestinian stabbing, shooting, fire-bombing and car-ramming attacks.

Nor was Indyk’s reference to late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin cause for pause. There is nothing as tried and true as resurrecting the dead to claim that if he had lived, things would have been different. You know, because, according to Indyk, Rabin “had the trust of the Israeli people, and the trust of Yasser Arafat.”

All one can do when faced with such a preposterous assertion is guffaw.

On the issue of Syria, Indyk engaged in similar sophistry, resting on questionable logic. “For the historical record,” he said, “five Israeli prime ministers, including Netanyahu, offered a full withdrawal from the Golan. … If you want to ask, ‘Where would you have been if’ — you would have been where you are with Egypt today: A revolution and a counterrevolution later, you still have a peace treaty with them. Guess what? ISIS [Islamic State] is in the Sinai, but you have an arrangement with Egypt under which you can help fight ISIS.”


Israel tried to make peace with Syria by giving up the Golan Heights and was rejected. And this, like the bloody civil war in which pro-Assad regime forces and rebels are massacring each other, is Israel’s fault?

Yes, Indyk bemoaned, had Israel reached a deal with Syria in the past, “It would have transformed the Israeli-Arab conflict in a dramatic way. We missed the opportunity for a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors — Lebanon would have followed as well. Problems with Hezbollah would have been in an entirely different context. And the U.S. would have remained the dominant power in the region. You can trace the arc of the decline of American influence in the region to that moment, when we failed to get the Syrian deal.”

Mr. Indyk, with all undue respect, the “decline of American influence” can be traced to the election of President Barack Obama. To blame Israel for that travesty goes beyond your usual chutzpah. Kudos for letting your immoral compass guide you to new low levels of discourse that, fortunately, most Israelis are no longer listening to.

Ruthie Blum is the web editor of The Algemeiner ( This article was originally published by Israel Hayom.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Indyk is a fool or an hypocrit perhpas even both! If Israel had made a forced peace with syria it would be now in the middle of unending wars and possibly in the middle of hell even. As to American either it would have declined responsibility in particular Under obanana and would have washed its hands or it would have had to send out troops to Israel and fight the present arab chaos which would have been even worse. Present situation is far better. If Israel transfers its arabs over to jordan all arab states will make peace with it and perhaps even be in peace themselves. So indyk please shut up and keep your stupid strategy for other fools such as you.

  • Al Sheeber

    Indyk was behind the Putsch to replace Bibi w/Ehud Barak, Clinton’s preferred Cocltal Socialist who was prepared to be so generous, he put everything on the table, it worked, Bibi was ousted. Nobody from the MSM ever mentions this disgusting act-as if when a Democratic President orchestrates a putsch of an ally- it is sanctioned and is a good thing. But here we have the same sleazy operator involved with a second Putsch, in his miserable lifetime, against the same elected prime Minister, but the current President is a different chap, a more vile character. Yest , the call Israel an ally. Guess, you can overthrow allied more frequently, this is why they are so close?
    So they took out Bibi – in 1999 and his NGO the decidedly lefty “Brookings Institute” with their phony Saban Center, a sort of a slush fund for the Clintons and their Lefty supporters, was indirectly advising on how to get rid of Bibi for the March 2015 elections cycle. they even dispatched some of the sleaziest guns from D.C hoping they can finish off the Bibi apparatus.
    During the ill timed 2014 “Peace talks” Indyk was actively involved with a bunch of focused leaks, while trying to create a breakthrough, forcing Bibi to capitulate to the Kerry initiative. Leaks that were designed to throw fear & doubts on Bibi’s ability to lead before the 2015 cycle as he did during 1999. He is a slimy, unctuous meddler. A loyal servant of the Clinton Crime Family this cheap aparatchnik, a man of few achievements in life, is nothing but a common meddler whose feckless superficiality is the one thing that ingratiate him with the Obama wrecking team, they are so out of it, they know less than him. he is a disgrace, a man who deserves nothing but contempt from all Israelis.

    • These lefty gangs are gangsters, nothing less than gangsters using the same methods and the same strategy of chaos.