Obama's nasty November surprise... for Israel
Former European Parliament MP Fiamma Nirenstein believes that President Obama is planning a
nasty November surprise (or maybe not such a surprise) for Israel.
But like Ariadne’s thread, a number of clues lead us to believe that,
after the November 8thvote and before the inauguration on January 20th,
Obama is planning a very strong move against Israel during a period in
which he can no longer influence the presidential election’s outcome or
damage Hillary.
In other words, facing a U.N. Security Council
resolution during the “lame duck” period, he’ll ignore the need for
negotiations between the two parties, impose borders, as well as set up
the parameters for the birth of a Palestinian State, reneging the
long-standing American veto. He would allow the resolution supported by
the French initiative for a peace conference to win.In practice, the
consequences would only be those of disrepute and, possibly, of
sanctions against Israel. In times of BDS, this discrediting,this
backing into a corner seems to drive more or less consciously America’s
policy toward Israel.
Astonishingly, the White House erased a
reference to the fact that at Peres’ funeral Obama had spoken in
“Jerusalem, in Israel” from a previously released statement on the
President’s speech. That is to say, the revered Peres would no longer be
buried in Israel, but rather, in some no man’s land. Later, using the
funeral as a bludgeon, while the world burns, the U.S. State Department
issued a violently worded statement regarding the construction of some
apartment units in Shiloh, in the West Bank (to relocate the displaced
settlers from Amona, a dismantled illegal settlement). The statement
basically says that the memory of the deceased leader had been betrayed
thus “cementing a one-state reality of perpetual occupation that is
fundamentally inconsistent with Israel’s future as a Jewish and
democratic state." Oh, really! The housing units, repeated the
government, will be built in an old settlement for refugees of another
destroyed settlement, without bringing one man more. Therefore, this
disproportionate criticism leads us to think two things: the first is
that they are creating an atmosphere for a political attack and
secondly, that Obama wants to leave his mark on the Middle East with
what he considers a boost to the peace process. But it is difficult to
think that he’s right: the real contribution that he could have given is
that of devising a new plan of territorial distribution (his
predecessors all did the same thing); to finally push the parties toward
talks; to ask Abu Mazen to renounce his support for terrorism; and to
favor Israel’s integration within the Middle East. However, he didn’t do
it.
Obama - if he insists - will be remembered as the president
whose pacifism(as has already happened in the past) has fueled conflict
throughout the Middle East and beyond. He will be perceived as the
anti-proliferation president who let the pact with Russia fall to
pieces, as the point of reference for Islamic moderation that favored
Iran and Hezbollah’s Shiite extremism, and who failed to stop Sunni
extremism while upsetting his more moderate allies. This legacy of
failures will only be worsened by sanctions upon the only pro-American
democracy in the Middle East.
I doubt anyone here would be surprised by this kind of nastiness from the self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah.'
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, feckless French, Judea and Samaria construction, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Shilo, United Nations Security Council
Priorities: As the world burns, Obama worries about Israeli 'settlement' bloc expansions
As the world burns around him, President Hussein Obama's obsession with Israel is interrupted only for his golf games. On Friday, the Obama-Kerry State Department condemned
Israel's incorporation of an abandoned former tuberculosis treatment center into the Etzion bloc.
Settlement activity is “illegitimate and counterproductive to the cause
of peace. Continued settlement activity and expansion raises honest
questions about Israel’s long-term intentions and will only make
achieving a two-state solution that much more difficult,” Kirby told
reporters in Washington on Friday.
He spoke days after Defense
Minister Moshe Ya’alon agreed to expand the Gush Etzion bloc to include a
4-hectare site with eight stone buildings that is located off of Route
60 between the Gush Etzion junction and the Kiryat Arba settlement.
Settlers
want to operate a tourist center on the property geared to helping
visitors take advantage of Jewish tourist sites in the area, including
the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.
The property was owned by
the US Presbyterian Church until 2008 where it ran a tuberculosis
hospital and then a hostel on the site. Inclusion of the site within the
Gush Etzion boundaries would make it easier for settlers to further
develop the property.
When queried about the compound by a
reporter at the daily briefing, Kirby said the US was “deeply concerned”
about the move, “which effectively creates a new settlement on 10 acres
in the West Bank.”
He then spoke in general about Area C of the West Bank, which is under Israeli military and civil rule.
“It’s
important to note that some 70 percent of the West Bank’s Area C has
already been unilaterally designated as Israeli state land, or within
the boundaries of these regional settlement councils,” Kirby explained.
“The
new decision only expands this significant majority of the West Bank
that has already been claimed for exclusive Israeli use. “Along with the
regular retroactive legalization of unauthorized outposts and
construction of infrastructure in remote settlements, actions such as
this decision clearly undermine the possibility of a two-state
solution,” Kirby said.
He added that “continued settlement
activity and expansion raise honest questions about Israel’s long-term
intentions and will only make achieving a two-state solution that much
more difficult.”
The US has asked both the Israelis and Palestinians to demonstrate their commitment to a two-state solution, Kirby said.
“Actions such as [the Gush Etzion] decision, we believe, does just the opposite,” he stressed.
I'm sure the
starving Syrians in Madaya and the
molested German women in Cologne found Obama's priorities heartwarming.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Germany, Gush Etzion, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Religion of Peace, religion of rape, settlement blocs, settlements are legal, Syria, Syrian uprising
Kerry's Obsession
Bashar al-Assad has been murdering Syrians for three years. Islamic State is overrunning parts of Syria and Iraq. Turkey is going Islamist and destroying Kurdistan. Iran is developing ballistic missiles to deliver its nuclear weapons. So what should be the biggest priority for the Middle East? If you're US Secretary of State John Kerry, it's the holy grail of '
peace' between Israel and the 'Palestinians.'
"I think that it is more critical than ever that we be fighting for peace, and I think it is more necessary than ever... As I went around and met with people in the course of our discussions about the ISIL (Islamic State) coalition, the truth is we – there wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt," Kerry said.
The US leader added that in order to achieve peace, both sides must make compromises.
"So what we need to do is recognize that we need to build peace through specific partnerships. One partnership is specifically the effort to try to drive towards this peace, to have a compromise, to find a way to create two states that can live together side by side, two peoples, with both of their aspirations being respected. I still believe that’s possible, and I still believe we need to work towards it," he said.
What could go wrong?
Labels: John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, State Department obsession with Israel
'Obama's dentist' is coming to the White House
With Prime Minister Netanyahu scheduled to visit the White House on Wednesday for the first time in seven months, Haaretz's Chemi Shalev reports that President Hussein Obama is looking forward to the meeting like one would
look forward to a dentist appointment.
The administration, meanwhile, is looking forward to Netanyahu’s visit
on Wednesday like one anticipates a dentist’s appointment or a pestering
grumpy uncle who just called to say that he must come over. Unlike
Modi, Obama doesn’t seem to have much interest in clearing the bad blood
or turning over a new leaf with Netanyahu nor does he appear to harbor
any hope that Netanyahu will suddenly emerge as a partner to U.S.
diplomatic initiatives in the area. Were it not for the war on Islamic
State – and the upcoming Congressional elections – Obama would have
likely tried to find a plausible excuse to call in sick for his White
House meeting.
Perhaps Obama ought to consider the difference between Israeli attitudes toward terrorism and 'Palestinian' attitudes. Of course, to do that, Obama would first have to understand the conflict by ridding himself of the pre-conceived Leftist notions on which he was seemingly suckled from birth.
Netanyahu's agenda for Wednesday's meeting is predictable. It's also predictable that the discussions will lead nowhere. Obama just isn't interested, and is not going to spend any more political capital in this region unless he has to. It's a pity that what he spent was totally mismanaged and therefore wasted. Arrogance dies hard in Washington.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear threat, Islamic State, Obama's obsession with Palestinians
Obama's dream world
If you're an Orthodox Jew like I am, you may have missed President Hussein Obama's speech to the United Nations on Wednesday, the eve of Rosh HaShanna.
Here's a recap.
Obama in his remarks offered praise to controversial cleric Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah
and referred to him as a moderate Muslim leader who can help combat the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL or ISIS) radical ideology.
However, Bin Bayyah himself has long been engulfed in controversy for many of his views, including the reported backing of a 2004 fatwa that advocated violent resistance against Americans fighting in Iraq.
...
“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if
it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of
day,” Obama said before the U.N., according to a White House transcript
of his remarks.
“Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies—Sheikh
bin Bayyah described its purpose: ‘We must declare war on war, so the
outcome will be peace upon peace,’” Obama said, quoting the
controversial cleric.
Concern over the administration’s relationship with Bin Bayyah started as early as 2013, when outrage ensued after he was reported to have met with Obama’s National Security Council staff at the White House.
While Bin Bayyah has condemned the actions of groups such as Boko
Haram and ISIL, he also has taken controversial positions against
Israel.
He issued in 2009 a fatwa “barring ‘all forms of normalization’ with
Israel,” according to a Fox report on the White House meeting.
Additionally, the notorious 2004 fatwa permitting armed resistance
against U.S. military personnel in Iraq reportedly stated that
“resisting occupation troops” is a “duty” for all Muslims, according to reports about the edict.
Bin Bayyah wasn't the only subject of
Obama's screed.
And then Obama dropped the other shoe. After spending fifteen minutes
blabbering about the glories and wonders of Islam, even as he decried
extremism and sectarianism, Obama proceeded to blame Israel for conflict
in the Middle East:
Leadership
will also be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and
Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America will never give up
the pursuit of peace. The situation in Iraq, Syria and Libya should cure
anyone of the illusion that this conflict is the main source of
problems in the region; for far too long, it has been used in part as a
way to distract people from problems at home. And the violence engulfing
the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard
work of peace. But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and
Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort –
not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so
many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am
President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis,
Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two
states living side by side, in peace and security.
The Israelis may not be the “main source of problems in the region,”
but by pressuring Israel before the entire world just weeks after Hamas
continuously fired rockets into Israel and shielded its own rockets with
children, Obama demonstrates his distaste for the Jewish State, and his
desire to cast them as a bleeding abscess leading to more violence. The
moral equivalence here was stunning, unjustifiable, and purely
disgusting.
There was more too.
Read the whole thing.
Over the weekend, my children asked how much longer would be in power. One of the older ones helpfully figured out that the next election is in 2016. I told them that may not help. Hillary Clinton is as bad as Obama, and Elizabeth Warren could be worse.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Obama administration's fecklessness, Obama's dream, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, United Nations General Assembly
USA Today admits that Jews bought 'grabbed' land in 'West Bank'
USA Today mentions
a fact that is usually hidden in its report on Israel's 'land grab' in Gvaot in Gush Etzion.
The Gush Etzion bloc's core communities were founded before Israel's
establishment in 1948 on land purchased by Jews in the 1920s and 1930s.
Arab soldiers destroyed the communities when they fought against
Israel's founding during the 1948 war.
If the entire pretext for forcing Israel to give up all the land that was liberated in 1967 is what the UN calls 'the inadmissibility of conquest by force' then why was it okay when the Arabs forced the Jews out of Gush Etzion in 1948? Why is the UN not advocating undoing that conquest by force?
And why is it that most of you probably had no idea that Jews owned land in Judea and Samaria before 1948? (I can hear my friend Sunlight shouting 'COUNTIES' but many of these records are likely incapable of reconstruction and many of the documents held by the Arabs are fraudulent. There was never a land registry in Judea and Samaria like there is in most other parts of the West, and it's very difficult to prove anything belonged to anyone before 1967. But it is a fact that Jews owned the land on which the Gush Etzion bloc is situated before 1948).
Labels: anti-Israel obsession, Barack Hussein Obama, Gush Etzion, John Kerry, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, State Department obsession with Israel, War of Independence
'Most pro-Israel administration evah' threatens 'further action' against Jewish state
Barak Ravid reports that the self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah' is threatening '
further action' unless Israel 'reconsiders' its conversion of some 1,000 acres of land into state land earlier this week.
The Obama administration is considering taking further action regarding Israel’s expropriation of 1,000 acres of West Bank land this week, on top of the condemnation Washington has already issued.
“Maybe our reaction will find expression in other ways,” a senior U.S. official told Haaretz, but declined to give details.
...
In recent days attempts have been made by the national security
adviser, Yossi Cohen, and other Netanyahu advisers to calm the Americans
down. The Israeli officials told the Americans it would take years
until any construction was carried out in the area. The move was a long
process that still required a number of stages of approval.
Netanyahu’s
advisers added that the move had taken the prime minister’s aides by
surprise; Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon had not coordinated it with
them. The aides had not been informed in advance about the Civil
Administration’s announcement, or the timing.
An aide to Ya’alon
confirmed that the prime minister’s aides had not been told of the move;
he said this was not necessary because it was only a technical
procedure.
A senior Israeli official said the move began at a
meeting of the security cabinet after the murder of the three teens. At
the session, Ya’alon suggested that as part of the response to the
killing, Israel should turn the Gva’ot outpost in the Gush Etzion area
into a new settlement.
The establishment of a new settlement
requires a cabinet decision, but no decision on the issue was made at
that security-cabinet meeting.
Despite the absence of a decision,
Ya’alon instructed the Civil Administration to advance the
administrative procedures for expropriating the land. The Civil
Administration surveyed the area to make sure the land intended for
Gva’ot was not privately owned by Palestinians.
The Civil Administration found that no land in the area was privately owned and thus announced the expropriation.
Palestinian residents of the area will be able to submit objections to the move in the next 45 days.
How ridiculous is the Obama administration being (aside from the fact that its reaction shows that it is most definitely
not pro-Israel)? Ravid's newspaper published a map of the area in question earlier this week. As you'll see below, this area has been part of Israel in every peace proposal going back to the
Rogers Plan in 1969.
And I am old enough to recall the fury that consumed American Jewry over the Rogers Plan when it was introduced (follow the link in the paragraph before the tweet). This 'land grab' is nothing but a tempest in a teapot.
Labels: anti-Israel obsession, Barack Hussein Obama, John Kerry, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, State Department obsession with Israel
'In a neighborhood featuring Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, just to name a few of the actors, President Obama was “enraged” at … Israel'
Peter Wehner
picks up on this quote from the Foreign Policy interview with
Martin Indyk that I
blogged on Wednesday. First the quote, then Wehner.
Well, it started with Defense Minister Moshe
Ya'alon attacking [Kerry] publicly during the peace process, which I attribute
to two things. One, the defense minister had a very clear sense of what
Israel's security needs are and they do not include withdrawing the Israeli
army from the Jordan River, which would have to be addressed in the peace
negotiations if there was to be a deal. So I think there was a substantive
disagreement, but the lack of respect was truly disturbing, specifically given
the importance of American security assistance for the well-being of Israel's
defense, for which the defense minister is responsible.
But it got
completely out of control during the Gaza crisis, where the secretary was
assailed for supposedly betraying Israel because he was trying to work with the
prime minister on a cease-fire, and he engaged with Qatar and Turkey to test
whether they could influence Hamas to stop firing the rockets. And that
criticism came not just from the right but from pundits on the left as well -- Haaretz published three articles by
their journalists attacking Kerry. I think that's a product of a particular
circumstance in which Israelis felt very much isolated, on their own -- that
the world didn't understand them. In that defensive crouch, I think they were
waiting for a betrayal by the United States even though the secretary and the president
repeatedly supported their right to defend themselves. So they interpreted the secretary's
actions as being designed to undermine Israel in favor of Hamas and undermine
its burgeoning alignment with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
In fact,
nothing could have been further from the truth but that was the perception and,
unfortunately, it was a line fed by some unnamed Israeli officials, one of whom
described Kerry as launching "a strategic terror attack." That was
just outrageous and it enraged the president.
Wehner:
Think about this for a moment. In a neighborhood featuring Hamas,
ISIS, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, just to name a few of the actors,
President Obama was “enraged” at … Israel. That’s right, Israel–our
stalwart ally, a lighthouse of liberty, lawfulness, and human rights in a
region characterized by despotism, and a nation filled with people who
long for peace and have done so much for so long to sacrifice for it
(including repeatedly returning and offering to return its land in
exchange for peace).
Yet Mr. Obama–a man renowned for his lack of strong feelings, his
emotional equanimity, his disengagement and distance from events, who New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd refers to as “Spock” for his Vulcan-like detachment–is not just upset but “enraged” at Israel.
Add to this the fact that the conflict with Hamas in Gaza–a conflict
started and escalated by Hamas, and in which Hamas used innocent
Palestinians as human shields–had a very negative impact on America’s
relationship with Israel. To show you just how absurd this has
become, other Arab nations were siding with Israel in its conflict with
Hamas. But not America under Obama. He was constantly applying pressure
on Israel. Apparently if you’re a nation defending yourself and, in
doing so, you wage a war with exquisite care in order to prevent
civilian death, it is reason to earn the fury of Mr. Obama.
It’s clear to me, and by now it should be to others, that there is
something sinister in Barack Obama’s constant anger aimed at Israel.
Most pro-Israel President evah? Don't believe it for a minute.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Gaza, Hamas, IDF, John Kerry, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Operation Protective Edge
Obama setting Israel up to take the fall for his failed peace talks
Jennifer Rubin's analysis of President Hussein Obama is
spot-on..
This past week, Abbas came to visit Obama at the White House. In
advance of his trip, Obama made no statements expressing displeasure
with the Palestinian Authority’s intransigence and its continued
demonization of Israel. Just before the meeting Obama told the assembled press corps:
I have to commend President Abbas. He has been somebody
who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a
diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by
side, in peace and security; a state that allows for the dignity and
sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for
Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors. . . . I also
want to point out that the Palestinian Authority has continued to try
to build strong institutions in preparation for a day in which the
Palestinians have their own state, and I will continue to emphasize the
importance of rule of law, transparency, and effective reform so that
not only do the Palestinians ultimately have a state on paper, but, more
importantly, they have one that actually delivers on behalf of their
people.
In fact, Abbas last year forced out the only true Palestinian reformer Salam Fayyad,
has refused to hold elections and occupies the presidency beyond the
legally allotted term.
Moreover, as former deputy national security
adviser Elliott Abrams explains:
“By making the ‘right of return’ a personal right for each Palestinian,
Abbas is saying the PLO has no right to negotiate over it and no right
to sign an agreement that defeats or even limits that ‘right.’ If that’s
really the PLO position, there will never be an agreement.”
How did the Abbas-Obama meeting go? The Times of Israel reports:
On his trip to Washington this week, Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected US Secretary of State John
Kerry’s framework document for continued peace talks with Israel, and
issued “three no’s” on core issues, leaving the negotiations heading for
an explosive collapse, an Israeli TV report said Friday. . . .
Specifically, the report said, Abbas rejected Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu’s demand that he recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He also
refused to abandon the Palestinian demand for a “right of return” for
millions of Palestinians and their descendants — a demand that, if
implemented, would drastically alter Israel’s demographic balance and
which no conceivable Israeli government would accept. And finally, he
refused to commit to an “end of conflict,” under which a peace deal
would represent the termination of any further Palestinian demands of
Israel.
We can therefore see that Obama’s words are entirely at odds with the
conduct of the parties in the region. He either chooses to misrepresent
the facts or he is blinded by unremitting hostility to Israel. In any
event, he indulges the PA’s intransigence despite replete evidence that
this only worsens the divide between the parties. The inescapable
takeaway is that Obama lacks real affection for the Jewish state and
when things fail intends to blame Israel.
But then, did anyone really expect otherwise? Why?
Labels: Abu Mazen, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Middle East peace process, Obama's dream, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians
Can President Hussein Obama stand up to this man?
It hasn't been so long since the picture above happened. Now, a bipartisan group of 80 legislators and foreign policy wonks is urging President Hussein Obama to confront Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan about the
lack of democracy in his country. Can Obama do it?
“Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is increasingly undermining a
central pillar of the decades-long, strategic U.S.-Turkish partnership:
Turkey’s growing democracy,” reads the letter,
organized by the right-leaning Foreign Policy Initiative, the
left-leaning Center for American Progress, the Bipartisan Policy Center,
and Freedom House. “We are writing because of our deep dismay at this
development and to urge you to make clear to the Turkish public
America’s concern about Turkey’s current path. Silence will only
encourage Prime Minister Erdoğan to diminish the rule of law in the
country even further.”
The letter was signed by several former Obama administration
officials including White House senior director Dennis Ross, State
Department policy planning director Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Julianne Smith, an advisor to the Vice President. Republican signatories include Ambassador John Bolton, Sen. Norm Coleman, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.
According to the experts and former officials, Obama has been turning
a blind eye to Erdogan’s descent into autocracy. In their opinion,
this alarming trend in Turkey has accelerated since last summer, when
Turkish authorities used a heavy hand to disperse street protests and
Erdogan denounced the protestors as “looters” while blaming foreign
conspirators for the unrest.
Erdogan is also actively trying to
cover up a huge corruption scandal which has engulfed his government
since December, according to the letter. The Turkish Prime Minister has
dismissed or reassigned thousands of prosecutors and police officers
involved in the scandal, which ties Turkish government officials and
even Erdogan’s son through shady business deals with Iran and al Qaeda.
The Erdogan govenrment has also imposed restrictions on internet
freedom and freedom of the press. A new law would allow the government
to block any website that has “insulting” content and Turkey still holds more journalists in prison than any other nation in the world.
“These
developments have already roiled Turkey’s economy, polarized its
society, and endangered its political stability,” the letter
reads. “Some might argue that because the United States has many
interests with Turkey—not least of which is ending the violence in Syria
and easing the suffering of its people—it should not risk alienating
its ally. Should Turkey succumb to the authoritarian impulses currently
on display, however, it would have profound implications for our ability
to work together and, therefore, for our deepest interests.”
But Obama has no intention of confronting Erdogan. He's too busy trying to browbeat Netanyahu into further endangering Israel's security through the creation of a 'Palestinian' reichlet.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, freedom of the press, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey
Indyk orchestrating campaign of former generals to 'convince' Israel it can give up Jordan Valley
It's no coincidence that we've been seeing stories all week that one former IDF general after another is suddenly claiming that we can give up the Jordan Valley. Former US ambassador to Israel and 'peace process' babysitter
Martin Indyk is orchestrating an organized campaign using former IDF generals to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu to give the Jordan Valley to the 'Palestinians.'
A report in Maariv Thursday said the the State
Department had drafted many military officials who have worked with IDF
officers, at various levels, in an orchestrated campaign to pressure the
Israelis that there is no danger in surrendering the region in order to
sign a deal with the Palestinian Authority.
The report said that the effort was being orchestrated by
former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. The plan is to build a
lobby among Israeli security officials to support a major American push
for Israel to agree to surrender the Jordan Valley. Between external
pressure from the U.S. and internal pressure from the Israeli lobby and
the media, Kerry hopes to be able to push Israel into making the
decision, without which the Palestinian Authority will not agree to the
peace framework he is pushing.
That pressure campaign was allegedly behind Defense Minister Moshe 'Boogie' Yaalon calling US Secretary of State John FN Kerry an 'obsessive messianic' on Tuesday. Yaalon made his comments in a private setting and apparently did not expect them to be quoted in the media. Yedioth Aharonoth, which broke the story, is the second most Leftist newspaper in Israel after the Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily Haaretz.
Meanwhile, military historian Aryeh Yitzhcaki argues that substantively,
Indyk's generals are wrong.
“A storm of Arab unrest is raging to the east,” said Yitzchaki,
as just one look at the situation in Iraq shows. Muslim radicals have
made great advances there, and the country is on the verge of being
turned into a terrorist state. In the past, Israel was concerned that a
strong Iraqi army could join with Jordan and Syria in attacking Israel.
That danger still exists – as does the danger that Iraq could export its
radical revolution to those countries as well, he added.
Rebels in Syria are working with their comrades in Iraq, with
the aim to build a united Arab nation, called “A-Sham.” If they succeed,
there is little chance Jordan could survive in its current form, and
Israel will be facing on its eastern border a huge, and very hostile,
Arab terror state, he said.
“We are headed for a very 'hot summer' on our eastern border,”
Yitzchaki said. “Those in charge of our defense must look at the
situation from all angles, and understand that without a presence in the
gateway to the Land of Israel, the Jordan Valley, Israel's security
will be compromised. Immediately to the east things look calm, but 100
kilometers beyond a monster is being built.”
And perhaps this is the place to deal with the substance of Yaalon's comments on Tuesday. After a detailed explanation of how the media work in Israel, why Yedioth published the story and how it got out of hand, JPost's Herb Keinon writes that
there are an awful lot of Israelis who agree with Yaalon (including yours truly).
Through it all, what was lost was what Ya’alon said: that Kerry is
obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian issue; that he approaches it like
someone on a messianic mission; that the negotiations are being
conducted not between Israel and the Palestinians, but by each side
with the Americans, not a healthy way to negotiate; and that the
security arrangements the US is recommending are simply not acceptable.
Save
the characterization of Kerry as being motivated by a messianic
sentiment, and that he should just “take his Nobel Prize and leave us
alone,” Ya’alon’s sentiments are neither illegitimate nor crazy. Nor are
they his alone.
Many have asked why Kerry seems to be focusing
like a laser beam on the Israel-Palestinian situation, when there are
so many other, even more pressing issues, in the region. As Fouad Ajami
wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal: “The ground burns in Iraq,
Syria and Lebanon. Borders are being contested, and militant Islamists
have all but overwhelmed secular authorities.
Yet America’s
chief diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, was in the neighborhood
this week, for the 10th time, on an expedition to Israel and the
Palestinian territories.”
Ya’alon’s comment that it was unwise to
run the negotiations through the Americans, rather than directly
between the sides, is not outlandish, nor is his claim that Israel
seems to have made all the concessions up until this point. Is a pledge
not to wage diplomatic war with Israel in diplomatic forums around the
world – what the Palestinians “gave” to enter the talks – equal to
Israel’s release of 104 convicted terrorists? And as to Ya’alon’s
remark about the unacceptability of a US security plan for the day
after an agreement is signed, is it not his job, as defense minister, to
voice his reservations? His problem is that he voiced them in the
wrong way, and in the wrong forum.
But no one should be mistaken:
What Ya’alon said rather inelegantly, many other Israelis – both
inside and outside the corridors of power – are thinking.
Read the whole thing. We all know why this is happening (which Keinon does not discuss): The Obama administration needs an 'achievement,' Israel is the Middle Eastern country most susceptible to American pressure, and if the parties negotiated directly they would never reach an agreement. And you thought an international conference was a bad idea?
Over the last few weeks, my daily Talmud class has been learning about the scapegoat, the goat that was pushed off a cliff each year on Yom Kippur to atone for the Jewish people's sins. I'm identifying more and more with the scapegoat these days.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, John Kerry, Jordan Valley, Martin Indyk, Messianics, Moshe Yaalon, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, State Department obsession with Israel
Obama fools some Israelis
According to a poll taken just after he left, at least
some Israelis were fooled by President Obama's visit.
The symbolic aspects, including
his outreach to Israelis, seemed to have already reaped benefits: a Channel 2
survey found that 39% of the public said that their perceptions of Obama
improved or improved greatly as a result of the visit; 34% said the visit did
not change their perceptions; and only 2% said that their feelings toward the US
president became more negative.
Regarding Israeli confidence that the US
will not allow Iran to get nuclear arms, some 58% of the public said they
believe or believe strongly that Obama will not let Iran to go nuclear, while
38% did not believe he will keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Yeah, right....
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry remains in Israel to try to find common ground to restart 'peace talks' with the 'Palestinians,' meeting with Netanyahu and his 'minister in charge of negotiations' Tzipi Livni.... What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Tzipi Livni
The Left declares victory for the 'settlers'
Here's a fascinating piece from Geoffrey Aronson, which while being a bit overstated, acknowledges the reality that the
settlers revenants have won, and that
due to President Obama's incompetence, the 'Palestinians' are worse off than they were four years ago.
“[Israel’s] goal was to prevent the establishment of an Arab state
between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea,” noted Israeli
columnist Nahum Barnea recently. “Today, with 300,000 settlers living in
Judea and Samaria, with a powerful lobby and compensation arrangements from Gush Katif
that would amount to hundreds of billions of shekels if they were to be
applied to the West Bank, you could say that the mission has been
accomplished.”
Washington’s commitment to a settlement freeze buckled in the face of
Israeli opposition. As a consequence, Obama left the United States’
vital interest in an agreement hostage to the pathologies that dominate
bilateral Israel-Palestinian relations.
This breakdown in Washington’s diplomatic effort to address the occupation is unprecedented. Jeffrey Feltman, UN undersecretary for political affairs, acknowledged this state of affairs at an Aug. 22 briefing
before the Security Council, where he noted that “in the short term the
international community may not be in a position to succeed in helping
the parties bridge their political differences.”
Obama’s singular achievement on this issue is therefore his most
dubious one. US interest in and leadership of the effort to end the
conflict has atrophied to a point not seen since the aborted Rogers Plan,
creating a policy vacuum that would lead to the October 1973 war.
Today, policy makers and the public alike have surrendered in the face
of the passions that drive the conflict. They are bored with its
grinding hopelessness, distracted by the more hopeful and dramatic
narratives of the Arab Spring, at once complacent about the price to be
paid for failure to end the occupation and settlement and resigned to
the victory of the settlers.
National Union chairman and MK Ya’akov Katz is representative of
settlers who smell victory. “Despite the freeze, settlement in Judea and
Samaria increased this past year,” he said. “With the current rate of
growth, we will be about 400,000 Jews before the next election campaign,
and within four years, we will be about half a million Jews in Judea
and Samaria. If you include East Jerusalem, we will number more than a
million Jews, at which point the revolution will have been completed.”
Read the whole thing.
Let's not jump for joy too much yet. The reality is that not a single new Jewish town has been established in Judea and Samaria, outside Jerusalem since 1993. Moreover, not a single new Jewish neighborhood has been established in any of the existing towns since that date, except such as were within the towns' previously established borders. As to the 'outposts,' the reality is that the government is still
expelling their
residents, albeit slowly.
What has changed has nothing to do with Obama: The reality of what happened in Gaza has made the overwhelming majority of Israelis resistant to the establishment of another 'Palestinian' reichlet in Judea and Samaria. While the Gaza envelope communities of Sderot, Netivot and Ofakim are
NotInMyBackYard,
Jerusalem and Tel Aviv very much are. Israelis aren't willing to give 'Palestinians' control of areas within rocket range of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Ben Gurion Airport, particularly after our bitter experience in Gaza.
And while Aronson has correctly described the reality, he ignores the connection between it and Obama's policies. Obama's poor treatment of Israel even predates the appointment of George Mitchell as envoy (the point at which Aronson begins). You will recall, for example, that Obama insisted that Israel not finish off Hamas so as not to
spoil his inauguration party. And while many Israelis might have been open to territorial compromise before Obama took office, that openness was ended by Obama's disavowal of President Bush's 2004 letter acknowledging '
changed demographic realities,' by Obama's insistence on
using the 1949 armistice lines as the default border, and yes, by the attempt at a 'settlement freeze' ('including Jerusalem') to drive the previous two points home, all of which made it a lot easier for Israelis to find
something upon which most of us could agree.
Ironically, it is far more likely that there will be a two-state solution if Mitt Romney is elected than it is if Barack Hussein Obama is reelected.
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Barack Hussein Obama, East Jerusalem, Hamas, Obama's obsession with Israel, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, revenants, settlement freeze, two-state solution
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Wednesday, September 5.
1) On foreign policy WWRD (What would Romney do?)
In a nutshell Barry Rubin proposes a Middle East for President Romney:
The basic grand strategy for the Middle East should be to form and lead a very broad and very loose — not institutionalized — alignment of forces opposing Islamism. This means showing real leadership to the Europeans; in fact, many European countries are better on this issue than Obama. It also means supporting Israel, of course, but there is a long list of others: Governments: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain (despite its faults), Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya (we hope Obama can claim credit for that one), Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia (despite its faults), and the United Arab Emirates. You can add some other former Soviet Muslim-majority republics. Opposition and democratic moderate movements: Iran, Lebanon, Syria (where the United States is supporting the Islamists!), Tunisia, and Turkey (see Syria, above). Let’s also keep in mind the Berbers, Christians, and Kurds in general as communities that overwhelmingly link their survival to fighting revolutionary Islamism. Such ethnic communities can also be found in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This cooperation to defeat radical Islamism, however it disguises itself, should be the backbone of U.S. policy. It can be implemented in a thousand different ways. Post-victory planning, which better start soon (at least among independent analysts), needs to define these.
There's a lot more to the article, but this is its central theme and the way in which Prof Rubin hopes that a President Romney would differ from President Obama.
Jackson Diehl lays out the differences between Obama's and Romney's foreign policies. Regarding the Middle East he writes:
In Syria, Obama has repeatedly rejected proposals that the United States help establish safe zones for civilians or supply weapons to the rebels. But Romney has come out for arming the opposition. And what of Iran? Both men have indicated they would use force as a last resort to stop Tehran’s nuclear program. But there is a significant difference: While Obama has said he has “a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Romney said in Israel this summer that he would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear “capability.” In other words, Obama probably would use force only if Iran actually tried to build a bomb, while a Romney attack could be triggered if Iran were merely close to acquiring all the means for a weapon — which it is. Last but not least comes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama came to office with a burning ambition to broker Palestinian statehood; that and the reduction of nuclear arms seem to be the foreign policy issues that engage him emotionally. The statehood push was one of the administration’s biggest busts, largely because of Obama’s own missteps, and during the election year it has been on hold. Yet it seems likely that a reelected Obama will try again, notwithstanding his poor relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Romney, in contrast, has made it clear that he, like George W. Bush in his first term, will put Palestinian statehood on a back burner.
2) Those who don't learn from history are doomed to write bad op-eds - Part 2
There have been a couple more retorts to the appalling op-ed, When it pays to talk to terrorists that appeared in yesterday's New York Times.
Jonathan Tobin writes:
Thus, the principle prop of Chamberlin’s thesis that “failing to strengthen moderates within the P.L.O. and effectively locking the Palestinians out of the Arab-Israeli peace process, American officials sidelined potential peacemakers,” is not merely incorrect. It is a blatant falsehood. If the use of Black September as a false front for Fatah seems familiar it is because it was not the last time Arafat tried that game. During the second intifada when his Hamas rivals were being seen by Palestinians as having more success at carrying out terrorist operations, the Palestinian Authority chief authorized the formation of new Fatah groups that could compete with the Islamists for the honor of killing the most Jews. The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade was initially presented, like Black September, as a Fatah splinter not under Arafat’s control. But the world soon learned that not only had Arafat authorized it, but he was actually paying for the group’s activities with funds contributed by European donors to the PA. Indeed, all we have to do is look at Arafat’s record after Israel not only started talking to him but empowered the terrorist chieftain by handing the West Bank and Gaza over to Fatah via the 1993 Oslo Accords. Rather than seeking to bolster peace, he continued a policy of funding violence throughout the 1990s, a stance that culminated in his launching of a terrorist war of attrition known as the second intifada after he refused Israeli offers of an independent state including most of the West Bank, all of Gaza and a share of Jerusalem in 2000 and 2001.
You would think that the author, Paul Thomas Chamberlin, an assistant professor of history would know a little history.
The New York Jewish Week applies similar logic, but its conclusion is well worth emphasizing:
Surely The Times could have found a more worthy essay to publish on the 40th anniversary of the Olympic killings than a critique of those who sought to defeat the terrorists.
The Washington Post and the New York Times owned Boston Globe both featured editorials advocating for the moment of silence at the Olympics in memory of the Israeli athletes killed in 1972. According to my memory and research, the New York Times featured no comparable editorial or op-ed. So the only editorial acknowledgment at the New York Times of the Munich massacre, is Professor Chamberlin's disgraceful essay arguing that the massacre was a sign that it was necessary to talk to terrorists. By publishing the essay the New York Times showed its disregard for the eleven Israeli athletes and all victims of terror since.
Labels: Campaign 2012, Iranian nuclear threat, Middle East Media Sampler, Mitt Romney, Munich Olympic massacre, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Soccer Dad, Syrian uprising, US foreign policy
Just what the US needs: Obama spending US tax dollars to create jobs abroad
With the American economy deep in recession, President Hussein Obama has embarked on a jobs creation program... for '
Palestinians' (Hat Tip:
MFS - The Other Side).
The Obama Administration today revealed it is embarking upon a $300 million Palestinian construction project; U.S. companies, however, need not apply.
...
The Local Construction Program, or LCP, as it is known, will seek out non-governmental entities to carry out a variety of initiatives involving "local construction or rehabilitation of roads, buildings, water, wastewater, public buildings including health facilities, schools, and other infrastructure."
USAID said it expects to release a formal Request for Proposals around September 3, and will not accept bids until that time. The agency revealed few other details.
As U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor reported earlier this year, USAID began awarding contracts in a separate Palestinian project worth upwards of three-quarters of a billion dollars (see: USAID Contracts Start Flowing in $750 Million Palestinian Infrastructure Project; Monitor, Jan. 14, 2012).
Helping to create a modern Palestinian state is a top priority for the Obama White House, which explicitly has made clear its intentions to accomplish that task -- even if it means taking away business from Israel.
Indeed, as the Monitor has been reporting since last year, the Obama Administration went so far as to launch a project whose aim is to draw tourists away from Israel and re-direct them to Palestinian lands (see: $58 Million USAID Contract to Help Steer Tourists Out of Israel and into West Bank, Gaza; Monitor, Jan. 7).
I'm sure there are lots of 'Palestinian' NGO's who are qualified to carry out those projects. I just can't think of any right now. And neither can they.
As to all you out-of-work Americans, you don't want those jobs anyway. Not unless they're going to hire Israeli security to ensure your safety.
But maybe 'Mr. Ryan' will be Vice President soon....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, US economy
'Palestinians' waiting for Obama 2.0: Could Obama cut off Israel's foreign aid?
Two weeks ago, I outlined the case for the
'Palestinian statehood' gambit working at the United Nations once the US election has passed. Others are now writing the same thing. Here's
Awr Hawkins at Breitbart.com:
However, the AP is reporting that Abbas may wait until after the Nov. US elections to prevent "unwelcome complications to US-president Barack Obama's re-election efforts."
A request for statehood in the UN has to make it beyond the General Assembly to the Security Council. There, one state can veto the Palestinian request and statehood is denied.
Historically that one veto been the U.S., but I wonder if a re-elected Obama might feel obligated to pay the Palestinians back for their support should he be re-elected?
Here's
Mohammed Daragmeh at Times of Israel.
Some Abbas aides are pushing for quick action, while Abbas is said to be leaning toward waiting until after the US presidential election in November. An earlier Palestinian UN bid could add unwelcome complications to UN President Barack Obama’s re-election efforts.
Palestinian officials have not taken sides publicly in the US presidential race. Although they have expressed disappointment over what they perceive as Obama’s failure to pressure Israel, they hope that — if re-elected — he will be more decisive in seeking a Mideast deal and freed from some of the domestic political shackles that hinder first-term presidents.
We all know what 'more decisive' means. President
Obama himself told Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in a candid moment that he thought was off camera and off mic.
Jonathan Tobin also believes that the 'Palestinians' are banking on a second Obama term, but he doesn't believe that will necessarily help the 'Palestinians':
Far more significant than the posturing in Ramallah were the comments by aides of PA President Mahmoud Abbas that their UN campaign would be largely put on hold until after the U.S. presidential election. As the Times of Israel reports, Abbas is planning to soft pedal his UN effort until November because he understands that any talk about the Palestinians could hinder Obama’s re-election hopes. Though the PA has been dismayed by the president’s election year Jewish charm offensive that has seen their concerns pigeonholed in Washington, Abbas is clearly hoping for a better result once Obama is safely returned to office.
...
As for their cherished hopes that a second Obama administration would do their bidding, that is exactly the sort of rumbling that scares Democrats who fear Jewish voters will remember the three years of administration pressure on Israel rather than the last few months of friendship. But even though the Palestinians have good reason to think that a Romney administration would be far less willing to tilt the diplomatic playing field in their direction as Obama has done, they need to remember why they’ve accomplished nothing in the past four years.
Even though Obama has been the least friendly president to Israel in at least a generation, the Palestinians got nothing out of it. President Obama picked fights with Israel over settlements, the 1967 lines and the status of Jerusalem, but the Palestinians still struck out because they foolishly thought Obama would do all their dirty work for them and still refused to negotiate.
Israelis may worry about what Obama’s re-election will mean for them, as they know it is a certainty that the charm offensive will end the day after the election. But they can take comfort in the fact that it isn’t likely that Mahmoud Abbas will get any braver or smarter in the next four years. Even with a friend in the White House, the Palestinians will gain no territory or a state so long as they are unwilling to negotiate. Nor can they hope to achieve those goals unless they are prepared to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Because that is still a virtual impossibility, their faith in Obama or the ability of any American politician to help them is clearly misplaced.
I hope Tobin is right, but I fear that he's wrong. Obama can do a lot of damage to Israel once he is reelected because there are foreign policy functions that a President can carry out unilaterally. For example, what if Obama said in 2013 that he is sequestering all US foreign aid that Congress had allocated to Israel until Israel accepts a 'Palestinian state' on the 1949 armistice lines? Notice, no requirement that the 'Palestinians' do anything. (If you think that could not happen, recall George H.W. Bush holding up loan guarantees to Israel over 'settlements'). Could Congress do anything to force President Obama to release that money? Probably not.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, US foreign aid
Obama's human rights charade continues
The Obama administration continues its charade that the United Nations 'Human Rights Council' is actually
concerned about human rights.
Last year the UN decided to annualize Council membership and begin terms in January rather than September. It was anticipated that this would also move the election cycle from the spring to the fall of 2012. But since the U.S. is now completing its first three-year term, President Obama’s Council re-election bid threatens to coincide with the final stretch of his presidential re-election campaign. Rather than risk having to defend his UN engagement charade at an extremely visible moment, American diplomats are working overtime pressing for May 2012 elections.
Interestingly, a second Council term would only start January 2013 and staggered elections would allow the U.S. simply to stand down now and run next year instead.
Given that the Bush administration vehemently refused to lend legitimacy to the Council by becoming a member, Obama’s maneuver is either a brazen attempt to shove membership down the throat of a future Republican administration or a cocky assumption of a Democratic win in November 2012.
At the same time, the administration isn’t taking re-election to the Council for granted. This helps explain a few more recent pro-UN and anti-Israel chess moves.
Two weeks ago President Obama put $79 million dollars in his budget for UNESCO and began pressing Congress to remove a prohibition on American funding to the organization.
The congressional injunction had kicked in after UNESCO pre-emptively granted Palestine “statehood” status. The congressional move had successfully put the brakes on Palestinian attempts to achieve statehood via the UN without committing to peaceful co-existence with Israel. By seeking to overturn it, the president makes clear that burnishing his pro-UN credentials is his higher priority -- and worrying about increasing the daylight between his administration and Israel is a distant second.
If there's anyone reading this blog who supports Israel and is nevertheless going to vote for Obama, could you please explain why in the comments? It seems to me that support for Israel and support for Obama are incompatible.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, UNESCO, United Nations Human Rights Council
It's Obama's fault!
If you want to know why the Amman talks have failed (yes, I know, they are to continue until March, but the reality is that they have already failed),
you need look no further than US President Barack Hussein Obama writes Jonathan Tobin at Commentary.
By stating that a Middle East peace deal should be negotiated on the basis of the 1967 lines, Obama strengthened the Palestinians’ belief that their demands for a complete Israeli retreat and the eviction of every Jew living in the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem had America’s tacit backing. Though Obama quickly followed up with a reassurance that he backed the idea of territorial swaps that would allow Israel to try to keep some settlements, the Palestinians viewed that as inconsequential, as the president had buttressed their position that a return to the status quo of June 4, 1967 was an imperative.
The Palestinians approach the West Bank–an area to which no sovereign nation had a claim that the world recognized in 1967–as theirs without any need to negotiate. Indeed, they are even incredulous at the notion that Israel has any claim or rights. Israel’s position is the West Bank is disputed territory, not Palestinian. By speaking of 1967 as the starting point, Obama tacitly endorsed the Palestinian position that the West Bank was “stolen” from them, even though they never owned it in the first place.
...
The irony is that although the Obama administration has always wanted to further peace talks, its every effort to achieve that goal has made it more difficult. Just as the president’s unprecedented demands for an Israeli building freeze even in Jerusalem made it impossible for the Palestinians to negotiate for anything less, so, too has Obama’s borders blunder given the PA an excuse to avoid talking about creating a viable border between Israel and a putative Palestinian state.
Indeed.
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Barack Hussein Obama, Obama's obsession with Palestinians
Zbig's dream
If you thought Zbigniew Brzezinski was out of his mind,
you ain't seen nothin' yet (Hat Tip:
Mike P).
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s new book, “Strategic Vision,” imagines a world without American power. He envisions profound instability, faltering international cooperation and weak states falling prey to their more dominant neighbors. Describing the dystopia that would emerge if America goes under is a trick British historian Niall Ferguson pioneered. Unlike the jingoistic Ferguson, however, Brzezinski is able to envision China replacing America as the stabilizing force in world affairs. “I don’t think liberal states are more restrained or stabilizing,” he says. “The United States’ actions in the last 20 years, especially with the war in Iraq, do not give reassurance on that score.”
...
In a telephone interview from his office at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., Brzezinski has both praise and criticism for the president: “He was an improvement by a very large score over his predecessor, but he could have been better.” He thinks the Obama administration “should have stuck to its guns in promoting a fair settlement” in the Middle East. A longtime foe of Israel’s partisans in the United States, he says the Obama team “fumbled by getting outmaneuvered by the Israelis.” Then he gets blunter: “Domestic politics interceded: The Israelis have a lot of influence with Congress, and in some cases they are able to buy influence.”
Brzezinski is still a believer in the two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, and is hopeful that Obama will again take up the cause if he gets a second term. “He would have time and the historical immunity to do so, because he wouldn’t be facing an election.” He also thinks space has opened up in the United States to be more critical of Israel. “The American public is becoming more discriminating, and the Jewish public in America is becoming more discriminating,” he says. “They realize that extremist sloganeering and warmongering are not the most helpful approaches.” Brzezinski is careful to note that he was never an official advisor to either candidate or President Obama but lets it be known they are still in touch: “I have a relationship where from time to time I am able to share my views with him,” he says.
Just think: With Hillary Clinton already saying
she won't serve a second term under Obama, if God forbid Obama wins, this nutcase could be Secretary of State.
What could go wrong?
Labels: American exceptionalism, Obama's obsession with Palestinians, Zbigniew Brzezinski
