Not a US ally anymore?
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
Turkey - led by President Hussein Obama's best friend forever - is
refusing to collaborate with the United States against the Islamic State terror organization (Hat Tip:
Joshua I). But Obama is loyal to Recep Tayyip Erdogan - unlike his attitude toward the United States' real allies. Instead of punishing Turkey for its obstinence, within 24 hours of Turkey's refusal to join, US Secretary of State John Kerry was
in Ankara meeting with Erdogan.
After a two-and-a-half hour meeting, the pair emerged to announce
that they had decided to cooperate “against all terrorist movements in
the region,” rather than just against IS.
The announcement, which was brief and contained almost no details,
was a signal that Turkey and America will not permit an open rift over
Turkey’s reluctance to join the US-led coalition. Instead, Turkey and
the US will continue to help the Syrian opposition and to share
intelligence. Neither of these developments should come as a surprise.
The compromise is considerably less than the US had hoped for at the
beginning of the week.
Thursday’s conference of Arab nations and the
United States in Jeddah marked the point when it became clear that
Turkey - even though it is the only NATO member in the region - would
not be a full member of the coalition. For some observers the
realization brought home claims made earlier this week by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen that Turkey and Qatar were neither definite friends nor enemies, but ‘frenemies’.
The Turkish delegation seems to have had the package of US military
measures unveiled to them in Jeddah. But when Turkey’s foreign minister,
Mevlut Cavusoglu, phoned home for further instructions, he was told not
to sign.
...
Sabah, a newspaper close to the Erdogan government outlined what it
says is the “partial support” that Turkey will give the US-led
coalition; humanitarian assistance, intelligence, and border security.
On the face of it, this package adds little or nothing particularly
new. Work is already well underway in all three areas. Turkey is a
refuge for around one million Syrian refugees and it now recognises that
it needs to prepare its borders against possible incursions from
IS-occupied areas. Turkish forces are also doing what they can to make
the highly porous frontier between Syria and Turkey and between Turkey
and Iraq more secure, although with a border stretching more than 820 km
with Syria and 350-km border with Iraq this is an extremely difficult
task.
Quite apart from a sense of comradery with Sunni activists in Syria
and Iraq, Turkey’s hands are also tied by another issue that hung over
the talks.
As long as 49 Turkish hostages, diplomats, family and staff from the
consulate-general, are being held in Mosul by IS, Turkey cannot take
strong moves against the militants without endangering the lives of the
captives.
While this consideration was not been openly stated, it was brought
up immediately by Turkish officials, who began discussing the problem
immediately after their country failed to sign the Jeddah communiqué on
Thursday.
...
It is possible that Turkey is clandestinely providing more support to
the anti-IS alliance than it openly admits. Indeed, there are claims
that US drones from Incirlik air-base are taking part in strikes on
Iraq, but there has so far been no confirmation of this and if Kerry has
extracted assistance of this sort, there was no hint of it today.
Instead, for the time being, the US and Turkey seem mainly to have
agreed to paper over the cracks in a difficult relationship.
In a Saturday editorial, the Wall Street Journal said that Turkey is not a US ally and that the US ought to
move its airbase out of Incirlik. Incirlik is less than 100 miles from Turkey's border with Syria.
US daily The Wall Street Journal has claimed in its editorial
on Saturday that it is the "unavoidable conclusion" that the US needs
to find a better regional ally to fight the self-proclaimed Islamic
State (ISIL) than Turkey, suggesting that the air base Turkey is
currently hosting should be moved somewhere else.
Recalling Turkey's reluctance in joining the anti-ISIL coalition, the
editorial said not only will Ankara take no military action, it will
also forbid the US from using the US air base in İncirlik—located fewer
than 100 miles from the Syrian border—to conduct air strikes against the
terrorists.
"That will complicate the Pentagon's logistical and reconnaissance
challenges, especially for a campaign that's supposed to take years," it
added.
The newspaper said the US military will no doubt find work-arounds
for its air campaign, just as it did in 2003 when Turkey also refused
requests to let the US launch attacks on Iraq from its soil in order to
depose Saddam Hussein. It said Turkey shares a 910-km border with Syria
and Iraq, meaning it could have made a more-than-symbolic contribution
to a campaign against ISIL.
The daily described it as a "reality" that the Turkish government, a
member of NATO, long ago stopped acting like an ally of the US or a
friend of the West. The editorial quoted former US Ambassador to Turkey,
Francis Ricciardone, who said this week that the Turkish government
"frankly worked" with the al-Nusrah Front—the al Qaeda affiliate in
Syria—along with other terrorist groups. It claimed that Ankara also
looked the other way as foreign radical groups used Turkey as a transit
point on their way to Syria and Iraq.
The WSJ noted that İncirlik air base has been a home for US forces
for nearly 60 years, but perhaps it's time to consider replacing it with
a new US air base in Kurdish territory in northern Iraq.
Don't expect Obama to listen to that advice. What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Francis Ricciardone, ISIS, John Kerry, Kurdistan, NATO, Nusra Front, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Syria, Turkey, Wall Street Journal
Wall Street Journal labels Judea and Samaria 'Palestine'
And you thought the Wall Street Journal was on our side....
The graphic above is a screen-cap from
this Wall Street Journal online report at the 2:33 mark. The graphic labels Judea and Samaria as 'Palestine.' Funny, I never heard of that country.
Labels: Judea and Samaria, Palestine, Wall Street Journal
Wall Street Journal slams Obama, makes news in Israel
In an earlier post, I discussed an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal late Friday night, in which the Journal slammed President Obama for, among other things,
burying his head in the sand on Iran's nuclear weapons program. That report, which was set off by Obama's ignoring comments made by Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey, is
continuing to make headlines here in Israel.
"Since coming to office, Obama administration policy toward Israel has alternated between animus and incompetence," The Wall Street Journal said. "No wonder the Israelis are upset. It's one thing to hear from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he wants to wipe you off the map: At least it has the ring of honesty. It's quite another to hear from President Obama that he has your back, even as his administration tries to sell to the public a make-believe world in which Iran's nuclear intentions are potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasn't failed after three and half years."
The article said it was the Obama administration's "head-in-the-sand performance" on Iran that had convinced Israel that it is better to strike sooner rather than later. "Not only is there waning confidence that Mr. Obama is prepared to take military action on his own, but there's also a fear that a re-elected President Obama will take a much harsher line on an Israeli attack than he would before the first Tuesday in November."
Toward the end of the article, The Journal offered Obama a piece of advice: "If Gen. Dempsey or administration officials really wanted to avert an Israeli strike, they would seek to reassure Jerusalem that the U.S. is under no illusions about the mullahs' nuclear goals — or about their proximity to achieving them. They're doing the opposite."
The Journal is seeing things exactly right. What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Obama's dream, Wall Street Journal
Renounce the deal
At our festive meal for
Hoshana Rabba today, the kids started asking whether and why we really have to release another 550 terrorists in two months' time. After all, Gilad is home already, so why not ignore the rest of the deal? Mrs. Carl dismissed the question, saying that Israel always keeps its word, but I said that it's not so simple. This is from an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration and the day after the second worst President in American history had finally managed to negotiate the release of the last 52 hostages from the American embassy in Iran. They were held for 444 days - about a quarter of Gilad Shalit's toll.
'The agreement the United States made with Iran for return of the hostages has the same moral standing as an agreement made with a kidnapper, that is to say none at all. This is not said in criticism of the Carter administration, which made the deal to save the hostages’ lives. But now that the hostages are free, President Reagan should examine the agreement carefully and if its unfulfilled parts do not, on balance, benefit American interests, there should be no hesitation in renouncing it.’
Could the same not be said about Israel's agreement with Hamas?
The
New York Sun raises the question and comments:
What we are counseling is that Israel has a free hand. A spokesman of Hamas, Fawzi Barhoum, is being quoted by the New York Times as warning Israel against “maneuvering or playing with any article of the agreement.” But that is not a sentiment for America to echo. It would be wrong to pressure Israel to stick by the deal. Or criticize it if it doesn’t. Particularly because it’s not yet entirely clear what all the elements of the agreement are.
There are reports — cited in Caroline Glick’s most recent column in the Jerusalem Post, for example — that Israel agreed “to give safe passage to Hamas’s leaders decamping to Egypt.” The theory seems to be that the Hamas terror chiefs are suddenly uncomfortable at Syria now that the regime in Damascus is in open war with the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalists there.
We’re not so concerned with any of the particulars. The point here is that if Israel were to renounce any further obligations, it would be — as the Wall Street Journal pointed out that President Reagan was — well within its rights. The kidnapping of Sergeant Shalit was an act of extortion. And an agreement extracted from someone with a gun to his head is not an agreement at all. Israel deserves support in whatever decision it makes in respect to the so-called agreement from here on out. It has the same free hand that America had 30 years ago.
Amen. I hope that Netanyahu's inner circle is taking a long hard look at this.
Labels: Hamas, Iranian hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter, New York Sun, Ronald Reagan, terrorists for Gilad trade, Wall Street Journal
Murdoch fallout to hurt Israel?
I have largely ignored the growing scandal involving wiretapping allegations against employees of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp in England. Perhaps, I shouldn't ignore it. Despite the fact that News Corp is partly owned by the Saudi royal family, it owns some of the most pro-Israel mainstream media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal and Fox News Corp. Will Israel lose a strongly pro-Israel voice as a result of Murdoch's troubles? Israel's supporters in the English-speaking world say there is cause for concern.
Murdoch’s sudden massive reversal of fortune -- with 10 top former staffers and executives under arrest in Britain for hacking into the phones of public figures and a murdered schoolgirl, and paying off the police and journalists -- has supporters of Israel worried that a diminished Murdoch presence may mute the strongly pro-Israel voice of many of the publications he owns.
“His publications and media have proven to be fairer on the issue of Israel than the rest of the media,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “I hope that won’t be impacted.”
Murdoch’s huge stable encompasses broadsheets such as The Wall Street Journal, the Times of London and The Australian, as well as tabloids, most notably The Sun in Britain and the New York Post. It also includes the influential Fox News Channel in the United States and a 39 percent stake in British Sky Broadcasting, or BSkyB, a satellite broadcaster. Murdoch founded the neoconservative flagship The Weekly Standard in 1995, and sold it last year.
Jewish leaders said that Murdoch’s view of Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians and with its Arab neighbors seemed both knowledgeable and sensitive to the Jewish state’s self-perception as beleaguered and isolated.
“My own perspective is simple: We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews,” Murdoch said last October at an Anti-Defamation League dinner in his honor. “When Americans think of anti-Semitism, we tend to think of the vulgar caricatures and attacks of the first part of the 20th century. Now it seems that the most virulent strains come from the left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel."
Murdoch, 80, has visited Israel multiple times and met with many of its leaders. In 2009 he was honored by the American Jewish Committee.
“In the West, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States,” he said at the AJC event. “Tonight I say to you, maybe we should start wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel. “
Read the whole thing.
Curiously, there's a line in the story that Murdoch had Fox force Glenn Beck out due to
discomfort in the
Jewish community over Beck's
attacks on
Kapo George Soros. If that's true, it's a bit surprising, given that the last paragraph I quoted from the story could have been written by Beck.
Regardless, it would be a tremendous loss for Israel's cause if Murdoch were to be forced out of the media business. Let's hope it doesn't happen.
Labels: Fox News, Glenn Beck, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, Wall Street Journal
Obama exposed
Okay, it's the Wall Street Journal and not the New York Times, but I still never thought I'd arrive in the US and find a mainstream media outlet referring to Barack Hussein Obama as an
Anti-Israel President (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
But Mr. Obama's problem isn't, as he supposes, that people aren't paying close enough attention to him. On the contrary, they've noticed that on Thursday Mr. Obama called for Israel to make territorial concessions to some approximation of the '67 lines before an agreement is reached on the existential issues of refugees and Jerusalem. "Moving forward now on the basis of territory and security," he said, "provides a foundation to resolve these two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians."
Mr. Obama neglected to mention these points on Sunday, hence the telling omission. But the essence of his proposal is that Israel should cede territory, put itself into a weaker position, and then hope for the best. This doesn't even amount to a land-for-peace formula.
That's not all. Mr. Obama got some applause Sunday by calling for a "non-militarized" Palestinian state. But how does that square with his comment, presumably applicable to a future Palestine, that "every state has a right to self-defense"? Mr. Obama was also cheered for his references to Israel as a "Jewish state." But why then obfuscate on the question of Palestinian refugees, whose political purpose over 63 years has been to destroy Israel as a Jewish state?
And then there was that line that "we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric." Applause! But can Mr. Obama offer a single example of having done that as president, except perhaps at the level of a State Department press release?
What, then, would a pro-Israel president do? He would tell Palestinians that there is no right of return. He would make the reform of the Arab mindset toward Israel the centerpiece of his peace efforts. He would outline hard and specific consequences should Hamas join the government.
Such a vision could lay the groundwork for peace. What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets one.
Well, yeah, but some of us
warned a long time ago that someone who spent 20 years listening to Jeremiah Wright's sermons and finding nothing wrong with them could very easily abandon Israel. And others kept fooling themselves that Obama loves Israel.
Here's hoping that Bret Stephens (who has been pushing the '
two-state solution' until now as if it were realistic) saying it out loud leads to a lot of other people in the American Jewish community saying what too many of us have been afraid to say:
Barack Hussein Obama is anti-Israel. Perhaps we should all use his middle name to remind those who are still hesitant.
Labels: anti-Israel obsession, Barack Hussein Obama, Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
No longer in vogue
Due to the community in which we live, well over 90% of the weddings that Mrs. Carl and I attend are 'separate seating' - men on one side of a screen and women on the other. As a result, it is frequently the case that one of us (usually me) goes to a wedding, while the other (usually Mrs. Carl) does not, because I know the husband and Mrs. Carl does not know the wife (or vice versa).
Mrs. Carl and our daughters have learned not to ask me about the bride's gown when I come home from weddings. Leaving aside the fact that I only see the bride during the ceremony and possibly during the Grace After Meals (if I am there for either of them - often I come only for dancing at the end and to wish the fathers of the young couple and the groom 'Mazal Tov'), my stock answer for questions about "what the bride wore" is "a white dress." So there's not much point in asking me questions like that and for the most part the females in the family have learned not to ask me.
So when the most recent issue of Vogue did a story about the
Assad family of Damascus and the 'glamorous' lady of the house, Asma al-Assad, I decided to
let others
blog about
it (that last link is Alana Goodman, from whose picture I conclude is particularly better qualified than I am to discuss an article in Vogue). I was going to let the 'rose in the desert' (yes, they really called Mrs. Assad that) go by the wayside, until I saw
this story in the Wall Street Journal, which was too good not to share. And it's thanks to this story that the other three get their links, for reasons that should become obvious below.
The only feet that seem to interest Vogue writer Joan Juliet Buck are the manicured toes of the first lady. Mrs. Assad reveals a "flash of red soles," we're told, as she darts about with "energetic grace."
The red soles are an allusion to the signature feature of Christian Louboutin designer heels—easily $700 a pair—that Mrs. Assad favors. (Mr. Louboutin, says Vogue, visits Damascus to buy silk brocade, and he owns an 11th-century palace in Aleppo.)
Mrs. Assad also sports Chanel sunglasses and travels in a Falcon 900 jet. But, we're assured, she's not the ostentatious sort: "Her style is not the couture-and-bling of Middle Eastern power but deliberate lack of adornment." She once worked at J.P. Morgan, never breaks for lunch, and starts her day at 6 a.m.—all while raising three children! Just another 21st-century woman trying to do it all in style.
And her parenting? "The household is run on wildly democratic principles," Vogue reports. "We all vote on what we want and where," says Mrs. Assad of herself, her husband and their children.
For the people of Syria, not so much. Outside their home, the Assads believe in democracy the way Saddam Hussein did. In 2000, Bashar al-Assad won 97% of the vote. Vogue musters the gumption only to call this "startling." In fact, it's part of a political climate that's one of the world's worst—on par, says the watchdog group Freedom House, with those of North Korea, Burma and Saudi Arabia.
But none of those countries has Asma. "The 35-year-old first lady's central mission," we're told, "is to change the mind-set of six million Syrians under eighteen, encourage them to engage in what she calls 'active citizenship.'"
That's just what 18-year-old high-school student Tal al-Mallouhi did with her blog, but it didn't stop the Assad regime from arresting her in late 2009. Or from sentencing her, in a closed security court last month, to five years in prison for "espionage."
Ms. Mallouhi goes unmentioned in Vogue. But readers get other crucial details: On Fridays, Bashar al-Assad is just an "off-duty president in jeans—tall, long-necked, blue-eyed." He "talks lovingly about his first computer," Vogue records, and he says that he studied ophthalmology "because it's very precise, it's almost never an emergency, and there is very little blood."
So it's the opposite of his Syria: murky and lawless, operating under emergency law since 1963, and wont to shed blood through its security forces and proxies like Hezbollah.
Read the whole thing.
So why didn't I link those other three blog posts (and several others that have written about this story) earlier? Well, until I read the Journal article, I didn't know what Louboutins are (Mrs. Carl has much simpler tastes). I clicked on the Journal article from Twitter because of its reference to what the 'dictator's wife' is wearing. And I still haven't read the Vogue article, and therefore would not have linked any of the other blog posts. I can't cover everything! I don't plan to read the Vogue article either. It's too long and probably a waste of time for me to read. I'm not going to imitate Mrs. Assad's style - nor her husband's - anyway.
But I will read those other three blog posts now....
Labels: Asma al-Assad, Syria, Vogue, Wall Street Journal
