This is not the Onion: Obama appoints Hamas-loving Rob Malley his adviser on ISIS
Robert Malley, a 'diplomat' who was fired from President Hussein Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign for maintaining contacts with Hamas, has now been
put in charge of the Obama administration's 'efforts' to confront ISIS.
The POTUS-in-Chief is taking it to the “Islamic State” in Paris this week, delivering blow after blow with his climate-summit rhetoric
like George Foreman KO-ing Ron Lyle at Caesar’s Palace. Has a
bloodthirsty, Islamofascist guerrilla-terrorist movement ever been
driven so thoroughly onto the ropes? You decide.
But Obama’s not stopping there. His administration announced today
that it’s appointing a new senior advisor to the president on ISIS.
The mainstream media picked it up a few hours ago.
For those who have forgotten....
Among other things, Malley has a long family history of anti-Semitism.
Then there's Malley who advocates US engagement with Hamas and Israel's national suicide:
In today's WaPo, Malley and Miller have co-authored an op-ed,
in which they claim that it is in both Hamas' and Israel's interests to
work together to calm the environment so that Hamas can 'govern' and
Israel can carry out its convergence surrender plan.
But for calm to prevail, Malley and Miller argue that Israel and the
United States must recognize three 'realities':
First,
Hamas will not accept the three conditions put forward by the
international community (recognition of Israel, renunciation of
violence, acceptance of past agreements), certainly not now and
certainly not under threat. Instead, these should be redefined in terms
that are both meaningful and realistic: Is the government solidifying
the cease-fire and restoring law and order? Is it dealing pragmatically
with Israel on issues of mutual concern? Has it endorsed the Arab
League's Beirut resolution, which, by calling for normalization of
relations with Israel once a peace agreement has been reached,
implicitly entails recognition? These are benchmarks that most
Palestinians would accept -- and that most Palestinians would blame
Hamas for rejecting.
This is nonsense on several counts.
First, so long as Hamas does not renounce violence and actively work to
oppose it, violence will continue, whether perpetrated by Hamas or by
Islamic Jihad and others with Hamas' blessing. Without a renunciation of
violence 'solidifying the cease fire' and 'restoring law and order' are
meaningless. It would allow violence to resume at any time. Second, so
long as Hamas does not recognize Israel, it will not deal with Israel -
pragmatically or otherwise. In Hamas' view, dealing with Israel means
making demands on it, which Israel has no reason to fulfill. Third, the
endorsement of the Beirut resolution is meaningless because it is
contingent upon Israel accepting the 'right' of 'Palestinian refugees'
to return to their 'homes' in Israel - which Israel can never accept
without forfeiting its character as a Jewish state. Sure 'Palestinians'
would accept these 'benchmarks.' They'd be happy to see Israel agree to
commit national suicide.
At The American Thinker, Ed Lasky provided some insight into the sources of Malley's thinking:
A
little family history may be in order to understand the genesis of
Robert Malley's views. Normally, one should be reluctant in exploring a
person's family background -- after all, who would want to be held
responsible for the sins of one's father? However, when close relatives
share a strong current of ideological affinity, and when a father has a
commanding persona, it behooves a researcher to inquire a bit into the
role of family in forming views. That said, Robert Malley has a very
interesting father.
His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World.
He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for "liberation" struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.
Simon
Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for
him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours
with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat.
He was, according
to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism
wave against the West. His efforts were so damaging to France that
President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country.
Malley
has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the
next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has
served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve
an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle
East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel
billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy
staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems
to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and
weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.
Robert Malley's writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.
Malley
has repeated this line of attack in numerous op-eds over the years,
often co-writing with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat
(see, for example, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors
). He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by
Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the
peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.
Malley
is a revisionist and his views are sharply at odds with the views of
others who participated at Camp David, including Ambassador Dennis Ross
and President Bill Clinton. Malley's myth-making has been peddled in the notably anti-Israel magazine, Counterpunch and by Norman Finkelstein, the failed academic recently denied tenure
at DePaul University . Malley's Camp David propaganda has also become
fodder for Palestinians, Arab rejectionists, and anti-Israel activists
across the world.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, ISIS, Islamic State, Robert Malley
White House: President won't meet with Clock Kid
Remember Ahmed Mohamed, the boy who was suspended for bringing a
clock suspected bomb to school, and who was invited to meet with President Hussein Obama?
Over the weekend, young Ahmed
met with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is under indictment for genocide by the International Criminal Court. Now, President Obama will not risk his political future by meeting with Ahmad.
Hey Ahmed - don't sweat it. Look what happened to
Rob Malley. Of course, it took him a bit longer to get there.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Islam, Omar al-Bashir, Robert Malley
Hamas-loving Malley to join National Security Council
Robert Malley, who was
forced to resign from the Obama campaign after it came to light that he was negotiating with Hamas, has been
named to the National Security Council. Fortunately, it sounds like he will have very little to do with Israel, at least for now.
Now,
Mr. Malley is coming back to the White House, administration officials
said on Tuesday. This time, he will manage the fraying ties between the
United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf, a job that says a lot
about how America’s role in the Middle East has changed.
As
a senior director at the National Security Council, Mr. Malley will
help devise American policy from Saudi Arabia to Iran. It is a region on
edge, with the Saudis and their Sunni neighbors in the gulf fearful
that the United States is tilting away, after decades of close ties with
them, toward a nuclear accommodation with Shiite Iran.
With
his many contacts throughout the Arab world, Mr. Malley, who has been
program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the
International Crisis Group, would seem well suited for such a post. But
he has also been something of a lightning rod in a field that can be
culturally and ideologically treacherous.
Malley has a
pedigree of anti-Semitism.
Malley is just one link in a chain of Obama foreign policy advisers who have led Hamas to endorse Obama. And there was plenty in Malley's background
that should have tipped Obama off to the likelihood that Malley had
these kinds of links, if he had bothered to check that background.
A
little family history may be in order to understand the genesis of
Robert Malley's views. Normally, one should be reluctant in exploring a
person's family background -- after all, who would want to be held
responsible for the sins of one's father? However, when close relatives
share a strong current of ideological affinity, and when a father has a
commanding persona, it behooves a researcher to inquire a bit into the
role of family in forming views. That said, Robert Malley has a very
interesting father.
His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World.
He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for "liberation" struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.
Simon
Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for
him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours
with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat.
He was, according
to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism
wave against the West. His efforts were so damaging to France that
President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country.
Malley
has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the
next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has
served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve
an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle
East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel
billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy
staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems
to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and
weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.
Now that Obama is a lame duck, he can appoint Malley to whatever position he wants.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, National Security, Persian Gulf, Robert Malley
If you're going to make us come to these talks, at least find an honest broker
Israelis strongly protested US Secretary of State John Kerry's choice of former Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk to be the US representative to the possibly upcoming 'negotiations.' Indyk is the co-chairman of the
New Israel Fund.
The NIF was infamously
found to have sponsored left-wing Israeli organizations that provided
92% of the Israel-based quotes which appeared in the Goldstone Report – a
United Nations report on Israel's "Cast Lead" counter-terrorism
operation which was slammed as one-sided and defamatory of Israel.
Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon has already sent a letter to
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu opposing the appointment of Indyk as
a go-between in the talks.
“The former ambassador, Mr. Martin Indyk, is the Chair of the
International Council of the New Israel Fund which provides funding to
anti-Zionist organizations that accuse Israel of war crimes,” wrote
Danon in the letter.
“I request that you ask the American administration for an honest broker for these negotiations.”
The NIF's critics note that it funds organizations that encourage
legal proceedings against Israeli soldiers and officials in various
countries, and organizations that are active in the BDS movement and
Israel apartheid week.
Ronen Shoval, chairman of Im Tirzu - a grassroots Israel Zionist
movement - called on the US administration to replace Indyk, in favour
of a "more honest broker."
...
"The Israeli public is already deeply suspicious and sceptical about
these talks. Appointing someone from the New Israel Fund to such a
crucial position will make them lose faith entirely - they just won't
trust someone from the NIF," he added.
As long as they don't bring us
Rob Malley instead.
Labels: Goldstone Report, John Kerry, Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, negotiations without preconditions, New Israel Fund, Robert Malley
Kerry to choose diplomat caught negotiating with Hamas for key Middle East position
The Washington Free Beacon's Adam Kredo reports that US Secretary of State John FN Kerry is about to appoint
Robert Malley to be deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, where he would be in charge of the Middle East 'peace process.' Malley, who was a member of the Clinton administration and an adviser to the Obama campaign, was fired from the campaign in 2008 after he was caught negotiating with Hamas.
A State Department spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Malley’s most prominent misstep came in 2008 when he was fired from his post as an adviser to then-Sen. Obama after he entered into direct negotiations with Hamas.
“He was one of literally hundreds of informal, outside advisors,”
Obama’s then-spokesman Bill Burton told ABC News at the time after
controversy erupted over Malley’s diplomatic visit.
One source close to the issue told the Free Beacon that the likely appointment “certainly raises eyebrows—not about Malley, but about Kerry.”
“It is surprising that Kerry would pick such a high profile choice
who has been involved in so many controversies,” said the source. “He’s
been surprisingly slow to identify who his [Middle East peace] team is
going to be. It’s a surprising decision from Kerry.”
Malley has long said that any Middle East peace deal would have to
receive the terror group Hamas’ endorsement despite the terror group’s
commitment to destroying the Jewish state.
“Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will need to negotiate a
political deal with Abbas, who will have to receive a mandate to do so
from Hamas,” Malley wrote in 2008 in the Washington Post.
“Otherwise, no matter how many times President [George W.] Bush
travels to the region, there is no reason to believe that 2008 will
offer anything other than the macabre pattern of years past,” he said.
When Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2006, Malley said an opportunity had arrived finally to achieve peace.
“Even on the diplomatic front, Hamas’ victory is not necessarily a fatal setback,” Malley told
the Common Ground News Service in 2006. “The Islamists’ approach is
more in tune with current Israeli thinking than the [Palestinian
Authority’s] loftier goal of a negotiated permanent peace ever was.”
The Hamas victory was a direct result of “Israeli settlement expansion,” Malley claimed at the time.
“The vote expressed anger at years of humiliation and loss of
self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Yasser Arafat’s
imprisonment, Israel’s incursions, Western lecturing and, most recently
and tellingly, the threat of an aid cut off in the event of an Islamist
success,” he said.
Hamas later severed Palestinian Authority influence in Gaza through a
violent coup and in the area under its control has implemented
extremist policies such as gender segregation,as well as continuing acts
of violence against Israelis.
I wrote extensively about Malley in January 2008 in one of my first votes about then-candidate Hussein Obama. Among other things,
Malley has a long family history of anti-Semitism.
Then there's Malley who advocates US engagement with Hamas and Israel's national suicide:
In today's WaPo, Malley and Miller have co-authored an op-ed,
in which they claim that it is in both Hamas' and Israel's interests to
work together to calm the environment so that Hamas can 'govern' and
Israel can carry out its convergence surrender plan.
But for calm to prevail, Malley and Miller argue that Israel and the
United States must recognize three 'realities':
First,
Hamas will not accept the three conditions put forward by the
international community (recognition of Israel, renunciation of
violence, acceptance of past agreements), certainly not now and
certainly not under threat. Instead, these should be redefined in terms
that are both meaningful and realistic: Is the government solidifying
the cease-fire and restoring law and order? Is it dealing pragmatically
with Israel on issues of mutual concern? Has it endorsed the Arab
League's Beirut resolution, which, by calling for normalization of
relations with Israel once a peace agreement has been reached,
implicitly entails recognition? These are benchmarks that most
Palestinians would accept -- and that most Palestinians would blame
Hamas for rejecting.
This is nonsense on several counts.
First, so long as Hamas does not renounce violence and actively work to
oppose it, violence will continue, whether perpetrated by Hamas or by
Islamic Jihad and others with Hamas' blessing. Without a renunciation of
violence 'solidifying the cease fire' and 'restoring law and order' are
meaningless. It would allow violence to resume at any time. Second, so
long as Hamas does not recognize Israel, it will not deal with Israel -
pragmatically or otherwise. In Hamas' view, dealing with Israel means
making demands on it, which Israel has no reason to fulfill. Third, the
endorsement of the Beirut resolution is meaningless because it is
contingent upon Israel accepting the 'right' of 'Palestinian refugees'
to return to their 'homes' in Israel - which Israel can never accept
without forfeiting its character as a Jewish state. Sure 'Palestinians'
would accept these 'benchmarks.' They'd be happy to see Israel agree to
commit national suicide.
At The American Thinker, Ed Lasky provided some insight into the sources of Malley's thinking:
A
little family history may be in order to understand the genesis of
Robert Malley's views. Normally, one should be reluctant in exploring a
person's family background -- after all, who would want to be held
responsible for the sins of one's father? However, when close relatives
share a strong current of ideological affinity, and when a father has a
commanding persona, it behooves a researcher to inquire a bit into the
role of family in forming views. That said, Robert Malley has a very
interesting father.
His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World.
He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for "liberation" struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.
Simon
Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for
him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours
with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat.
He was, according
to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization --- and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism
wave against the West. His efforts were so damaging to France that
President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country.
Malley
has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the
next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has
served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve
an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle
East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel
billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy
staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems
to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and
weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.
Robert Malley's writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.
Malley
has repeated this line of attack in numerous op-eds over the years,
often co-writing with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat
(see, for example, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors
). He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by
Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the
peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.
Malley
is a revisionist and his views are sharply at odds with the views of
others who participated at Camp David, including Ambassador Dennis Ross
and President Bill Clinton. Malley's myth-making has been peddled in the notably anti-Israel magazine, Counterpunch and by Norman Finkelstein, the failed academic recently denied tenure
at DePaul University . Malley's Camp David propaganda has also become
fodder for Palestinians, Arab rejectionists, and anti-Israel activists
across the world.
His story of the talks is also plain wrong.
And now he is going to be in charge of the next round of 'talks.' What could go wrong?
Labels: anti-Semitism, Barack Hussein Obama, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, Robert Malley
Which of Obama's friends would you want at your seder?
Here's an ad questioning President Obama's commitment to Israel that is being run in Jewish newspapers in swing states (Hat Tip:
Michal S).
Obama Israel Final Oct 2012
I think they forgot Chas Freeman.
Labels: Ali Abunimah, Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Ayers, Campaign 2012, Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Robert Malley, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, US-Israel relationship, Zbigniew Brzezinski
Confirmed: US dropping pressure for 'settlement freeze' extension
Tuesday night's report that the United States is
dropping its effort to convince Israel to agree to a 'settlement freeze' extension has now been
confirmed by the New York Times (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum). Israel Radio reported in its 9:00 am news on Wednesday that Secretary of State Clinton will make an official announcement regarding the US decision on Thursday in an address to the Saban Center of the Brookings Institute. This is from the Times.
The administration decided to pull the plug, officials said, because it concluded that even if Mr. Netanyahu persuaded his cabinet to accept a freeze — which he had not yet been able to do — the 90-day negotiating period would not have produced the progress on core issues that the United States originally had sought.
“We made a strong effort, and everyone tried in good faith to resume direct negotiations in a way that would be meaningful and sustainable,” said a senior American official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the administration’s internal deliberations, which are continuing. “But the extension wasn’t actually going to do that.”
The most incredible thing about this story is that it took them this long to figure that out when everyone and his kid brother understood it immediately. Did they really think that there were any circumstances under which they could make a deal on borders within three months? For that matter, does anyone really believe that a final status deal could be negotiated within a year? It could be if everyone shared the same goals, but in this case the parties do not share the same goals and placing a deadline on negotiations is simply a guarantee that the negotiations will fail.
A preview of the administration’s next move could come in an address on Middle East policy that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is scheduled to deliver on Friday at the Brookings Institution. But the administration’s strategy appeared to be unsettled.
“Wisely, in my view, the administration is bending to reality,” said Robert Malley, a peace negotiator in the Clinton administration. “The most likely scenario is that this moratorium was going to buy them a short reprieve, and was then going to plunge them into the same crisis they were in before.”
And if Rob Malley -
who is not known as a friend of Israel - is saying that they had to bow to reality, they
really had to bow to reality.
Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians issued a response to the news. But administration officials said the United States made the decision after consultations between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Netanyahu. The two had hammered out the agreement on a 90-day freeze, which Mr. Netanyahu later said he could not sell to his cabinet without written security assurances from the Americans.
Those assurances, which included 20 F-35 stealth airplanes and an American pledge to veto anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations, were never delivered to the Israelis. While that package is now off the table, an official said, he reiterated that the United States would continue to protect Israel’s security and fight efforts to challenge its legitimacy in international organizations.
After the way that this administration callously dumped the 2004 Bush letter of assurances, did they really think that any Israeli government wasn't going to at least insist on getting these kinds of promises in writing? Do they really think we're that foolish?
In the short run, analysts said the failure raised questions about Mr. Netanyahu’s capacity to negotiate a final deal.
“It revealed a degree of weakness in his coalition,” said Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel. “This was such an attractive deal for him, but he still couldn’t get his cabinet to buy into it without attaching conditions to it that were unacceptable to Washington.”
Actually, it doesn't indicate a weakness in the coalition. It indicates the strength of Israelis who are not going to sell out their homeland, their state and their security for a bowl of porridge. That's not weakness - it's strength. We have acknowledged the reality that there is no 'fierce moral urgency' to make 'peace' and that - as Mrs. Clinton herself admitted a few months ago - we can live with the status quo for quite some time to come.
But the Palestinians also shifted their position, insisting that a settlement freeze must include East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank. Israel’s initial 10-month moratorium included only the West Bank. The United States never asked Mr. Netanyahu to expand it to Jerusalem, and analysts said Mr. Netanyahu would never have been able to persuade his right-wing cabinet to go along with it.
That's the only intelligent move this administration has made up to the decision on Tuesday night to drop the 'settlement freeze' extension altogether.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, direct talks, Hillary Clinton, Robert Malley, settlement freeze extension
