Obama gives Jordan's Abdullah the Israel treatment
Just last night, I reported on how President Hussein Obama has been giving 'our friends, the Saudis' the
Israel treatment. Now, he's giving it to
Jordan's King Abdullah II.
The White House on Monday said President Barack Obama
would not meet with close ally King Abdullah of Jordan -- who is
currently in Washington -- because of scheduling problems.
"The president regrets that he is unable to meet with
him personally on this visit due to scheduling conflicts, including the
State of the Union address," a White House spokesperson said.
On Tuesday, Obama will deliver his final annual address
to a joint session of Congress, a set piece of the U.S. political
calendar.
The White House and Jordanian officials said Abdullah would instead meet with Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday.
He met with Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday.
Kerry and Abdullah discussed the fight against the
Islamic State and "efforts to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace
negotiations," a diplomat said.
Abdullah also met with Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who
expressed his "deep appreciation... for Jordan's continued
contributions to regional counter-ISIL efforts," Pentagon spokesman
Peter Cook said.
He was referring to the self-proclaimed Islamic State
group, which has seized large chunks of territory in Iraq and Syria and
declared a caliphate ruled in accordance with Islamic law, or sharia.
Obama "looks forward to the opportunity to meet with His Majesty in the near future," the White House official said.
Obama and Abdullah last met in Washington almost a year ago.
On Twitter, The Israel Project's Omri Ceren has assured me that the White House
knows exactly what's going on in 'Southern Syria' (i.e. Jordan).
Obama is remaking the Middle East yet again.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Caliphate, Iran, ISIS, Islamic State, Jordanian King Abdullah, Lee Smith, Mudar Zahran, New Middle East, Omri Ceren, Syria
Obama to Jewish leaders: 'Stop fighting me on Iran and I'll stop Jew-baiting'
The only puzzling thing about this piece by Lee Smith is why he keeps insisting that
President Hussein Obama is not an anti-Semite. Or maybe he didn't have a /sarc tag.
The participant told me that some Jewish leaders in the meeting
objected to how the administration characterized the JCPOA’s critics.
“Words have consequences, and when they come from official sources, they
can be even more dangerous,” he said the president was told. “The
community worked hard to keep it from getting personal and didn’t make
it specific to him. The president complained about the lobbying, and
said some of the same people who brought you Iraq are opposing the Iran
deal. He was told those characterizations are not accurate. Jewish
lobbyists didn’t support the Iraq war.”
Another participant who also asked to remain anonymous told me that
some people expressed discomfort with “how the debate is being
framed—framed as, ‘if you are a critic of the deal, you’re for war.’ The
implication is that if it looks like the Jewish community is
responsible for Congress voting down the deal, it will look like the
Jewish community is leading us off to another war in the Middle East.”
Apparently, President Obama wasn’t paying attention because the one point he made sure to drive home in his speech the
next day at American University in Washington, D.C. is that there are
only two choices: the JCPOA or war. And the only nation in the world
that does not think this is “such a strong deal” and “has expressed
support” is the Israeli government. In short, if you don’t like the agreement, then you want war and you’re aligned not with the United States and the rest of the civilized world, but with a Jewish pariah state.
A senior official at a Washington, D.C.-based Jewish organization
involved in the Iran fight told me: “The President told concerned Jewish
Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic
insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech
implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”
It’s unfortunate that the president of the United States seems to
really believe that Israel and the American Jewish community was
responsible for taking America to war in Iraq. But Obama is not an
anti-Semite and it seems he doesn’t even really want to
use anti-Jewish dog whistles, like he did last month on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
But the JCPOA is the cornerstone of his foreign policy legacy and he’s
determined to win. AIPAC is leading the countercharge with a
multi-million dollar campaign managed by a group called Citizens for a
Nuclear Free Iran. According to The Washington Post, “The president suggested to AIPAC that ‘if you guys would back down, I would back down from some of the things I’m doing.’’’
Or, as one of the participants told me Obama said, “If you don’t like
the claims that are being made, don’t run the advertisements.” In other
words, lay off criticizing the Iran deal and I’ll lay off the
Jew-baiting.
Read the whole thing. Yes, Obama is an anti-Semite.
Shabbat Shalom everyone.
Labels: American Jews, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Lee Smith, Obama's anti-Semitism
'One of the tensest meetings I can ever remember'
The legacy of Stephen Wise - who chose his personal relationship with FDR over
saving Jews during World War II - must have been on the minds of many of the rabbis who attended a meeting with President Hussein Obama regarding Iran on Monday. Perhaps that's why one rabbi described it to Lee Smith as '
one of the tensest meetings I can ever remember' (Hat Tip:
Gershon D).
“It was one of the tensest meetings I can
ever remember,” said one participant who has been invited to many White
House sit-downs over the years and requested anonymity. “The president
spoke for 25 minutes, without notes,” he told me. “It was very
impressive. Some people said very nice things, others expressed
concerns, and talked about the role of Congress, and he talked about
presidential prerogative, and cited other precedents for it. Lots of
people challenged him very strongly, like about taking the threats of
dictators seriously when Khamenei says death to America, death to
Israel, death to the Jews. The president said he knows what the regime
is, which is why he is trying to take away their weapons. He didn’t
dismiss what the Iranians say, he just didn’t really address it.”
Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal center,
who also attended the meeting, was willing to speak on the record to
Tablet. “Speaking for myself,” said Hier, “I was not satisfied.” Hier
declined to describe the president’s comments but told me the point he
made in the meeting. “Mr. President,” he said, “in a few weeks, you and
others will be going to Germany to commemorate the 70th anniversary of
the liberation of the concentration camps. What meaning does that have
when while negotiating over the nuclear treaty with Iran, none of the
six powers said a word when the ayatollah Tweeted about annihilating the
state of Israel, or a leading general in the IRGC said this is the
regime’s raison d’etre? What meaning does the 70th anniversary have? Hitler said he was going to murder all the Jews in a letter
from 1919, and he wound up doing it. If you hear the ayatollah saying
that, every world leader should repudiate it immediately.”
What Obama is doing may be even worse than what Roosevelt did 70 years ago.
Roosevelt never lifted a finger to save European
Jews, but he did defeat the Nazis. Obama writes letters to the man who
threatens to exterminate Jews and promises him peace. American Jewish
leaders have plenty to worry about. The cost to American political life
of legitimizing exterminationist anti-Semitism may turn out to be one of
the worst parts of a bad deal.
Obama isn't even going to fight Iran, and he is attempting to hogtie his successor into abstaining from a fight as well.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Lee Smith, P 5+1, World War II
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
I had a study partner when I was in yeshiva who used to say that oversleeping is a good thing, because it means that you needed the sleep and at least you weren't wasting the time. Today, his wife is a prominent Israeli blogger, whose blog I am sure many of you read. I think of his words to salve my guilt every time I oversleep.
The entire week of starting slichoth at 4:15 am (4:05 on Sunday and 4:30 tomorrow) caught up with me this morning, and I crashed and burned after working (real work - not the blog) for a couple of hours this morning.
I will have more later today, but here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Thursday, October 6. I've had the Kristof piece open all day and may have more to say about it later.
1) Ignorance is no excuse
Nicholas Kristof asks Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy? Given the author and the question you know his answer is "yes." It's hard to imagine a more fact free article than this one. For decades, Palestinian leaders sometimes seemed to be their own people’s worst enemies. Palestinian radicals antagonized the West, and, when militant leaders turned to hijackings and rockets, they undermined the Palestinian cause around the world. They empowered Israeli settlers and hard-liners, while eviscerating Israeli doves. These days, the world has been turned upside down. Now it is Israel that is endangered most by its leaders and maximalist stance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is isolating his country, and, to be blunt, his hard line on settlements seems like a national suicide policy.
Kristof is of course parroting Thomas Friedman's "I've never been more worried about Israel's future" plaint. Now of course those Palestinian radicals got their cause on the map. I don't recall folks like Kristof saying, "If they have to turn to terror their cause is illegitimate," the reaction was more like "if they have turn to terror their plight really must be awful." In other words, people like Kristof legitimized Palestinian terror. Netanyahu is, of course, nothing like Kristof's (or Friedman's) ignorant caricature. The man, who in his first term as Prime Minister withdrew from most of Hebron is not, by definition, maximalist. Since the intellectually lazy Kristof simply repeats the idea that Israel is isolated, perhaps it's worth checking out a different view. In Loner, Lee Smith argues that it is the United States that is becoming isolated. After arguing that Israel's position is actually somewhat improved because of the Arab spring, Smith writes: In Syria, the Obama Administration has disdained to play any hand at all. The administration has hesitated to throw its weight behind the opposition movement, and U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford has warned that if Assad’s opponents take up arms they will lose whatever international support they have. In other words, as Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all make contingency plans for Syria, the White House announces it is out of the picture. Net American gain: zero. By withdrawing from Iraq, the White House has effectively abandoned a vital U.S. interest to Iran. President Barack Obama sought meaningful engagement with the Iranians, but Tehran rebuffed even the administration’s offer to establish a hotline to prevent some minor event from turning into a major conflagration. The Iranian message is clear: There is no reason to talk, since our intent to drive you from the region couldn’t be clearer. Another zero. The White House has shown it will not take the Iranian nuclear issue seriously. Clandestine operations and cyber-warfare are not serious actions taken by a superpower against a state threatening a nuclear breakout: They are sideshows meant to assuage Israel and distract our Arab allies in the Gulf. Accordingly, the Saudis have warned they will go their own way by building their own coalitions against Iran. Even the Palestinian Authority, which exists solely at the pleasure of the U.S. government, and thanks to the munificence of American taxpayers, has decided to strike out on its own at the United Nations.
Take you pick: Kristof whose analysis consists of cutting and pasting tired cliches, or Lee Smith who actually looks at evidence before drawing conclusions. Then think about this: Which one writes for the publication often called "the paper of record?"
2) Moderate is a relative term
Elliott Abrams writes about Sari Nusseibeh and Palestinian Moderation: Nusseibeh, the man of “humane understanding,” a philosopher by training, ends by saying that calling Israel a “Jewish State” would necessarily “arouse fears among Palestinians and Arabs about being ethnically cleansed in Palestine.” One may assume that in that phrase he refers to Israeli Arabs as well as those of the West Bank and Gaza, so he is not only warning of “ethnic cleansing” but engaging in some linguistic ethnic cleaning of his own here: he is referring to Israel as part of “Palestine.” Now, one can argue as Nusseibeh does that Israel should not seek to be a “Jewish State” and should call itself a democratic state with a Jewish majority. What is shocking about Nusseibeh’s view is not that conclusion but the arguments he makes to support it, which proceed from polemics and straw men through double standards and finally reach the accusation that a Jewish State would be a murderous state, ethnically cleansing and eliminating its non-Jewish citizens. This is perilously close to the accusation, made by the kind of Palestinian that Nusseibeh is supposed to loathe, that Israel is a Nazi state. Thus the state of the “peace process” in October 2011. A leader of the Palestinian “moderates” writes articles that make him sound like Khaled Meshal, Hassan Nasrallah, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his description of Israel.
Now that's maximalist. Elder of Ziyon has also critiqued Nusseibeh.
3) Oh to be a nation
The Palestinians are going about getting support for their statehood bid. The New York Times reports, Palestinians Win a Vote on Bid to Join Unesco: The initial approval came in a vote by Unesco’s 58-nation executive board. Full membership would have to be approved by the 193-nation General Conference, which meets later this month. The Palestinians submitted their bid for full recognition to the United Nations Security Council on Sept. 24, while international political leaders continue work to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. “We need the issue of the state of Palestine to be resolved in the U.N. system,” said Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations. Unesco, Mr. Mansour said, “is one place where we can acquire our rightful place among the community of nations as a full member.” Membership would allow Palestinian officials to seek the protection of Palestinian historical sites by the cultural organization, other officials noted. That would create further conflict with Israel. For instance, some of those sites are in east Jerusalem, which Israel has annexed.
Interesting take on UNESCO, which has been actively denying Jewish historical sites. Asaf Romirowsky argues that the effort may backfire: Geographically and demographically, the so-called Palestinian state, which includes Gaza and the West Bank, does not exist. It is divided between Fatah and Hamas, Gazans and West Bankers, so the dream of the contiguous Palestinian state is a farce. Pragmatically, Palestinian statehood would force Palestinians to give up the victimhood status they have been carrying as a "badge of honor" for over 60 years. Then, world public opinion would be forced to judge them as a state and not as the "underdog." It remains politically correct to call for a two-state solution, as the very concept sounds idyllic: Two states living side-by-side in peace and harmony with free trade and a free market of ideas. However, in the real world, we are talking about an environment where on the part of one side there is no recognition of the other's right to exist in the region, period. The majority of Palestinian society remains unwilling to accept Israel's right and today openly call for a one-state solution, a de facto final solution for the state of Israel.
Will losing victim status hurt the Palestinian cause? Maybe in the West, but not among the OIC members. Clearly upgrading membership in the UN is another step in the war against Israel, as Mahmoud Abbas himself boasted in an op-ed in the New York Times last May.
I'm not even sure that Romirowsky is right. So long as they don't actually have a state (as opposed to membership in the UN), I believe that the 'Palestinians' will be able to maintain victimhood status everywhere except the Republican side of the United States.
Labels: Abu Mazen, Elliott Abrams, Lee Smith, Middle East Media Sampler, Nicolas Kristof, Sari Nusseibeh, Soccer Dad, UNESCO
Western media ignore anti-Semitism in Egypt
Martin Krossel of the David Frum forum worries that the international media is ignoring anti-Semitism in Egypt.
Frum cites two incidents that have largely been ignored by the mainstream media to prove that anti-Semitism in Egypt is being ignored by the mainstream media. I've discussed both of them at length on this blog. One is the appearance of Muslim Brotherhood preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi in Tahrir Square last Friday in front of two million Egyptians and his promise to '
liberate'
Jerusalem. The other was the rape of Lara Logan and the cries of "
Jew, Jew" while she was being raped - which were ignored by nearly all mainstream media outlets other than the New York Post.
Nothing new - right? Not according to
Frum.
It’s hard to underestimate the significance of either the al-Qaradawi return or the Logan attack. Rubin maintains, “Qaradawi, though some in the West view him as a moderate, supports the straight Islamist line: anti-American, anti-Western; wipe Israel off the map, foment Jihad, stone homosexuals, in short the works.” Qaradawi is 84 years old – two years older than Mubarak. However, Rubin warns, “Make no mistake. Qaradawi is not some fossilized Islamic ideologue. He is brilliant and innovative, tactically flexible and strategically sophisticated. He is subtle enough to sell himself as a moderate to those who don’t understand the implications of his words or who look beneath the surface of his presentation.”
Rubin further asserts, “It is Qaradawi, not bin Laden, who is the most dangerous revolutionary in the world and he is about to unleash the full force of his power and persuasion on Egypt.” Rubin contends that if Qaradawi ends up running Egypt, it will be Israel that will be “left to pay the bill”. Qaradawi declared, during last Friday’s sermon, that he was looking forward to a celebration in Jerusalem was similar to the one in Cairo. And as Rubin pointed out, Qaradawi did not intend the ceremony to take place after the implementation of a negotiated “two-state solution.” Qaradawi has also pledged to keep the border between Egypt and Gaza open, which would make possible the inflow of arms to the Islamic terrorists now ruling Gaza.
The implications of the widespread suppression of the fact that Lara Logan’s attackers shouted anti-Semitic slurs are also profound. From the moment that rebellion broke out in Egypt, the international media almost universally referred to “pro-democracy” protesters, as if the demonstrators in Tahrir Square were today’s incarnation of American’s founding fathers. If only Mubarak, or his military, didn’t stubbornly try to withhold political power from those in the square, Egypt’s road to liberal democracy would be unhindered. The anti-Semitism of Logan’s attackers seriously challenges the validity of this portrayal of the Egyptian crisis.
At a symposium sponsored by the Hudson Institute earlier this month, Samuel Tadros, a founder and executive board member of the Egyptian Union of Liberal Youth, outlined the hurdles that Egypt might encounter on its way to democracy. He argued that while protesters in the street told foreign reporters that they wanted democracy, democracy isn’t defined by Egyptian protestors in the same way it is in the West. In the West, it’s usually thought to require liberal practices and traditions such as the rule of law and an independent judiciary.
For instance, Tadros pointed out that while Egyptian judges are independent, 92% of them voted to exclude women from their “judge’s club”. This decision was supported by the Egyptian government. Tadros also said that there are three political parties in Egypt that describe themselves as and are generally considered to be liberal. The Vice-President of one of these liberal parties actually authored an article titled “Are Jews Human?” He concludes that Jews are actually locusts who should be exterminated. Moreover, Tadros said that Egyptian schools and media had not provided Egyptian citizens with the kind of civic education that would allow them to participate in democratic discourse.
Tadros’ speech was televised by C-SPAN, where unfortunately it was probably not watched widely. An internet search that I conducted didn’t come up with any indication that Tadros had ever appeared on any of the other cable news networks, nor – with one exception – that he had even been mentioned in a major newspaper, such as The New York Times or The Washington Post. (He was the co-author of a 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he elaborated on the popularity of anti-Semitism among Egyptian “liberals”.) Arguably, Tadros understands Egypt as well as anyone else in America. Why is the press not eagerly seeking his interpretation on the tumultuous events in his native country? Could it be that his argument, like the triumphant return of Qaradawi and the anti-Semitic slurs of Logan’s attackers, successfully throws a wrench into the notion that, without the likes of Mubarak and his cronies on their backs, Egypt’s transition to liberal democracy is assured?
The reason Frum had problems finding things about Tadros is that Tadros is quite young. He's a candidate for a Masters degree and a fellow at the Hudson Institute, which is how he happened to speak at this symposium.
C-Span has decided that this ought to be a fundraiser and not an occasion to get the message out. So they have not put the program on YouTube - only on their own web site. They have made it non-embeddable, but you can buy the DVD for $30 (No, I doubt any of you will rush out to do that).
But you can watch the speech. If you go
here, Tadros is the first speaker in an hour and a half program. He speaks from about 6:37 to 16:51 (and Lee Smith is the next speaker, which will make you want to stay longer). The Q&A is at the end - I have not watched it.
The Hudson Institute has put part of Smith's speech on their website. Maybe they will put Tadros' speech up as well.
And yes, I agree with Frum - the fact that these two incidents are being ignored by most of the mainstream media is deeply troubling.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Arab democracy, David Frum, Egyptian regime change, Lee Smith, Samuel Tadros
The end of Hezbullah?
Lee Smith argues that, appearances to the contrary, what we may be witnessing this week is the
beginning of the end for Hezbullah.
After all, the reason that Hezbollah fears the tribunal is because they understand that having been named guilty in the murder of a Sunni leader, they will have shown that they are not the Islamic resistance fighting the Zionist entity, but a sectarian project directed against the Sunnis. Their war against Israel was meant to earn them prestige in the great Sunni sea that has engulfed the Shia for more than a millennium. Now they have forfeited all that.
In the meantime, Lebanon is governed by a terrorist organization, which means that unlike Hezbollah’s patrons in Iran and Syria, the country is not merely a state sponsor of terror, but is an actual terrorist state, and one that will be in violation of several UN Security Council resolutions. Certainly Israel’s menu of targets will be much larger in the next round of hostilities with Hezbollah since the occluded cleric Hassan Nasrallah no longer has any state institutions to hide behind. Between Israel and their own countrymen Hezbollah will have little room to move, and that may well spell its end. As one anti-Hezbollah Shia activist once explained to me, “I saw the birth of Hezbollah so I know it will have an end as well.” In the coming months and years, Hezbollah may become stronger yet and enjoy some victories, but those will be temporary for what we are watching today in the streets of Lebanon is the beginning of Hezbollah’s end.
Read the whole thing.
Unfortunately, the only way Hezbullah's demise is likely to come about is in a bloody and costly war with Israel.
Labels: Hezbullah, Israel, Lee Smith, Politics, Special Tribunal for Lebanon, World Politics
Helping the Arabs to kill themselves
Here's an interesting take from Lee Smith on the Arab culture in our region, where, as Smith puts it so delicately, the truth is
just one of several possible narratives.
Western cyber-optimists argue that information technology like satellite television and the Internet will so inundate the Arabic-speaking Middle East with images and information that it will entirely reconfigure Arab societies. But this has it exactly wrong: Culture is more powerful than technology, and how a society uses any given technology is determined by its culture. This is why no one wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to have a nuclear bomb, but no one has a problem with France’s weapons program. This is also why the Internet is not going to open the eyes of those Arabs who are instead more inclined to use it to spread disinformation. Pallywood is nothing more than the nexus where an Arab culture of lies meets Western technology.
That is to say, the Arabs are not winning an information war against Israel, nor anything else for that matter. Rather, the stories and lies they tell to delegitimize the Jewish state are part and parcel of the war that they have been waging against themselves, and with stunning success. The tragedy is that everyone knows where the Arabs are heading, because the signs of failure and self-destructiveness couldn’t be clearer—poverty, violence, despotism, illiteracy, mistreatment of women, and the persecution of confessional minorities, like Egypt’s Coptic Christian population. The Western journalists and NGOs who repeat and credential these lies are doing no honor to either the values of their own society or those of the Arabs; they’re merely helping a culture kill itself.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Arab culture, Lee Smith, taqiyya
