Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Obama Foreign Policy Tag

Posted by David Gerstman on May 09, 2014 14 Comments
Why is it so hard to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Look at the final scorecard of the latest round of Middle East peace talks. Israel allowed three groups of prisoners - a total of 78 - to go free in exchange for talks. These prisoners were murderers. When they went to their homes their actions were celebrated. Put aside why Israel didn't release the final group of prisoners. Put aside the spectacle of a society that honors killers and what that implies for peaceful coexistence. Israel paid a price for negotiations that led nowhere. This isn't the first time either. In 2010, the administration pressured Israel to agree to a "settlement" freeze in order to coax Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate. Abbas dragged his heels and in the last few weeks of the freeze. When the Palestinians finally started to negotiate the freeze was set to expire. The United States tried to encourage Israel to extend the freeze but Israel refused and the Palestinians walked away from the negotiations at the end of the freeze. Earlier too, Israel paid a price just to get the Palestinians to negotiate. A commenter on an earlier post of mine made a great point:

Posted by David Gerstman on May 04, 2014 7 Comments
It is hard to believe that it has been three months since Barry Rubin passed away. With all going on in the world, and especially in the Middle East, Barry's absence is pronounced as there are few who saw things as clearly as he did. Barry's essays and columns are not disposable, like those of some other columnists and analysts. He wasn't looking for some pithy phrase to describe a complex problem or looking for new evidence to support his ideology. He looked at events and facts and drew his conclusions. Consequently something Barry wrote could still be relevant or true, months or years later. Two recent stories illustrate this point. Barry had been a critic of the Obama administration's handling of Syria's civil war. The Times of Israel last week featured an interview with a Syrian dissident Kamal Al-Labwani, Israel is our last hope, indicates Syrian dissident. The point referred to in the headline is Labwani's belief that Israel could win over the moderate rebels in Syria and much of the population if it helped protect civilians.
“If you only helped us intercept low-flying [regime] helicopters by providing a limited amount of antiaircraft weapons, with American approval, it would have a huge effect, morally and militarily,” Labwani said. “There are a million ways such weapons can be given to recognized people [in the opposition]. These weapons have ‘fingerprints’ and deactivation modes.” Alternatively, he said, Israel could declare a no-fly zone in southern Syria, as NATO did in Libya in its bid to topple Muammar Gaddafi. Such a move would immediately cause a large segment of Syrian society to support peace and normalization with Israel.
But there's more to the interview. Labwani is not currently among the Western backed rebels. He explained why:

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on April 29, 2014 23 Comments
In Manila yesterday, Fox News' Ed Henry asked President Obama to explain the Obama doctrine. As Obama faces increasing criticism from all sides regarding the efficacy of his foreign policy, he first scoffed at the question responding, "Well Ed, I doubt I'll have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine." The President then proceeded to go into a long-winded explanation highlighting several foreign policy endeavors, including Ukraine and Syria. President Obama also took aim at his critics and, true to form, the policies of the Bush administration. [Emphasis Added]
Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force. And the question I think I would have is, why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget? And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?
Despite insinuating that critics of his foreign policy are essentially war-mongers, the President had trouble finding examples where the criticism of his foreign policy centered on a lack of American boots on the ground.

Posted by David Gerstman on April 25, 2014 9 Comments
In the wake of Fatah's embrace of Hamas earlier this week there has been a very interesting reaction. Actually, the reaction has been interesting because it's been mostly non-existent. Though the New York Times and Washington Post have reported on Fatah's betrayal of the American sponsored peace process, neither has published an angry editorial denouncing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for endangering or destroying the peace process. Few news events shatter perceptions more clearly than when a supposed moderate embraces extremism. And even given the fraught history of past Fatah-Hamas agreements the symbolism here is unmistakable. A week before Secretary of State John Kerry hoped to have a framework agreement, the Palestinian Authority came to an agreement with the terrorist Hamas organization and not with Israel. Let's do a few comparisons. Exhibit A: New York Times  In March 2010, when Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel, Israel's Interior Ministry announced plans to build houses in Ramat Shlomo. Even though Ramat Shlomo is part of Jerusalem and a part of Israel's capital that everyone expects will be part of Israel in any final agreement with the Palestinians, the announcement precipitated a diplomatic crisis between Israel and the United States. An editorial in the New York Times two days later stated about the announcement, "And it is hard to see the timing as anything but a slap in the face to Washington." In 2010, the Israeli announcement didn't and wouldn't change anything about the Middle East materially and yet the New York Times criticized the Israeli action. That Fatah-Hamas agreement, on the other hand is a game-changer. Israel dropped its objections to the PLO when the PLO renounced terror. Of course, under Arafat that declaration was meaningless as he encouraged terror against Israel even after Oslo. Abbas was supposed to be the peaceful one. But now he's embraced a terrorist organization.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 24, 2014 10 Comments
Excellent analysis in the left-wing Haaretz newspaper by journalist Ari Shavit, Waiting for the Palestinian Godot:
There are some moments a journalist will never forget. In early 1997, Yossi Beilin decided to trust me, and show me the document that proved that peace was within reach. The then-prominent and creative politician from the Labor movement opened up a safe, took out a stack of printed pages, and laid them down on the table like a player with a winning poker hand. Rumors were rife about the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement, but only a few had the opportunity to see the document with their own eyes or hold it in their hands. I was one of those few. With mouth agape I read the comprehensive outline for peace that had been formulated 18 months earlier by two brilliant champions of peace -- one, Israeli, and one, Palestinian. The document left nothing to chance: Mahmoud Abbas is ready to sign a permanent agreement. The refugee from Safed had overcome the ghosts of the past and the ideas of the past, and was willing to build a joint Israeli-Palestinian future, based on coexistence. If we could only get out from under the Likud’s thumb, and get Benjamin Netanyahu out of office, he will join us, hand in hand, walking toward the two-state solution. Abbas is a serious partner for true peace, the one with whom we can make a historic breakthrough toward reconciliation. We understood. We did what was necessary. In 1999, we ousted Likud and Netanyahu. In 2000, we went to the peace summit at Camp David. Whoops, surprise: Abbas didn’t bring the Beilin-Abu Mazen plan to Camp David, or any other draft of a peace proposal. The opposite was true: He was one of the staunchest objectors, and his demand for the right of return prevented any progress.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 10, 2014 9 Comments
From Adam Kredo at The Free Beacon, Top [U.S.] diplomats planted anti-Israel reports in lead up to peace talk collapse:
The Obama administration has been waging a secret media war in capitals across two continents blaming Israel for the recent collapse of peace talks with the Palestinians, according to former Israeli diplomats and Washington, D.C. insiders familiar with the peace process. Multiple sources told the Washington Free Beacon that top Obama administration officials have worked for the past several days to manufacture a crisis over the reissuing of housing permits in a Jerusalem neighborhood widely acknowledged as Israeli territory. Senior State Department officials based in Israel have sought to lay the groundwork for Israel to take the blame for talks collapsing by peddling a narrative to the Israeli press claiming that the Palestinians were outraged over Israeli settlements, the Free Beacon has learned. These administration officials have planted several stories in Israeli and U.S. newspapers blaming Israel for the collapse of peace talks and have additionally provided reporters with anonymous quotes slamming the Israeli government. The primary source of these multiple reports has been identified as Middle East envoy Martin Indyk and his staff, according to these insiders, who said that the secret media campaign against Israel paved the way for Secretary of State John Kerry to go before Congress on Tuesday and publicly blame Israel for tanking the talks.
It makes sense. The John Kerry clown show has so mangled things, talking out both sides of the clown car, that the end result of Israel taking the blame was a foregone conclusion. John Podhoretz writes, Contemptible John Kerry blames Israel for his own mess:

Posted by David Gerstman on April 07, 2014 7 Comments
Last month, Jeffrey Goldberg published an interview with President Barack Obama, ahead of Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu's trip to the United States to attend the AIPAC conference. The President wasn't at all friendly in the interview, warning (in Goldberg's words) that "time is running out." Roughly four weeks later, Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority refused to continue negotiations with Israel. Is there a connection between the two? Put a different way, in the words of Neo-Neocon Did Obama Sabotage Kerry on Peace Talks? The answer is "yes," and here's how. There are two points that Obama made in his interview worth recalling. Answering a question from Goldberg about Abbas, President Obama said:
We don’t know exactly what would happen. What we know is that it gets harder by the day. What we also know is that Israel has become more isolated internationally. We had to stand up in the Security Council in ways that 20 years ago would have involved far more European support, far more support from other parts of the world when it comes to Israel’s position. And that’s a reflection of a genuine sense on the part of a lot of countries out there that this issue continues to fester, is not getting resolved, and that nobody is willing to take the leap to bring it to closure.

Posted by David Gerstman on March 20, 2014 7 Comments
Israeli homes built on land captured in the 1967 war is the perennial go-to blame game for Palestinians' hard line at negotiations.  But it's just a negotiating ploy as to which Western leaders are all to eager to engage. The other day, for example, David Weinberg wrote in Blame those Damn Settlements that removing the settlements would not alter threats to Israel or Muslim rejectionism of a Jewish national entity:

If it wasn't for the settlements, you see, the Palestinians undoubtedly would recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas would formally forgo the so-called "right" of return for Palestinian refugees. Hamas and Fatah would bury the hatchet. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry would win the Nobel Peace Prize, twice. And the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement would stop seeking to demonize and delegitimize Israel.

If it wasn't for the settlements, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani would announce an end to Iranian nuclear enrichment activities and the dismantlement of all related nuclear facilities. The Iranians would also stop shipping missiles to the Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

After his litany, Weinberg, of course, acknowledged that he was being facetious and observes, "Settlements are an issue for negotiation, a solvable matter of dispute." It is easier to use settlements as an excuse for the lack of peace. Doing so, lets the Palestinians off the hook.  It assumes that Israel has a partner for peace.

When he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas earlier this week, that's the approach that President Obama took. Obama said:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 19, 2014 14 Comments
Face it, Obama has structured key portions of U.S. foreign policy on Vlad Putin playing nice. Iran nukes? Check. Syria chemical weapons and civil war? Check. Egypt shifting allegiances? Check. Nuclear arms treaty compliance? Check. Central and Eastern Europe territorial integrity? Check. On what key issues does Putin need Obama? Yeah, now Vlad is threatening to leave the relationship and take all the prized possessions with him. Via AP, Russia warns West it may change its stance on Iran:
Russia may revise its stance in the Iranian nuclear talks amid tensions with the West over Ukraine, a senior diplomat warned Wednesday. Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said, according to the Interfax news agency, that Russia didn't want to use the Iranian nuclear talks to "raise the stakes," but may have to do so in response to the actions by the United States and the European Union. The statement is the most serious threat of retaliation by Moscow after the U.S. and the EU announced sanctions against Russia over its annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region. Ryabkov, who is Russia's envoy to the Iranian talks, said that Russia considers the "reunification" with Crimea as far more important than the developments surrounding the Iranian nuclear program.
The featured image, a Branco Cartoon from September 2013, still rings true. So does this photoshop that made the rounds:

Posted by David Gerstman on March 15, 2014 11 Comments
During the past year, three English speaking heads of state have spoken in Israel. Nearly a year ago, President Barack Obama addressed the people of Israel in the Jerusalem's International Convention Center. In January, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper addressed the Knesset. This week British Prime Minister David Cameron did too. The contrasts between the President Obama's speech and those of Harper and Cameron are striking. First of all, President Obama chose to forego addressing the Knesset on his first state visit to Israel. According to Jay Carney, “The president will speak to all of the Israeli people in front of an audience of young Israelis who … have it within their hands the power to shape Israel’s future." In other words, President Obama doesn't like the direction Israel is taking (Israel held election two months earlier) and will seek to engage Israelis who may be more receptive to his message that Israel's elected leaders. Although the president was addressing university students, he refused to allow students from Ariel University attend his speech. To be sure, President Obama said many of the right things in his speech. He even acknowledged that Israeli efforts at making peace resulted instead in being "... faced terror and rockets." But these professions of sympathy come across as perfunctory.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 11, 2014 10 Comments
The announcement recently by Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinians never, ever would recognize a Jewish state garnered plenty of headlines. It quickly was followed up by a similar announcement from the Arab League and Fatah party. Watch this speech by Abbas, which led to the headlines, and read the text. It appears that the peace negotiations were a farce from the get-go. Abbas is in favor of the 1 1/2 state solution -- one for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and another half a Palestinian state within Israel itself through the unfettered and unrestricted "return" of 1948 refugess in the war started by the Arab plus their descendents. It is clear that any peace deal only is a first step. Abbas, the supposedly most moderate Palestinian leader Israel is likely to see (according to Obama-Kerry), does not accept a Jewish national entity. That's the bottom line. Transcript via MEMRI:
Mahmoud Abbas: "Our position is that the settlements – from start to finish – are illegal. They talk about settlement blocs, or about settlements here and there, but we say that every house and every stone that were placed in the West Bank since 1967 and to this day are illegal and we do not recognize them." […] "No resolution that we agree upon with the others will be passed unless it is confirmed by popular referendum of all the Palestinians worldwide." Applause […]

Posted by New Neo on March 08, 2014 25 Comments

Or is this story even true? Is it actually one of those "good-cop/bad-cop" tales instead? It's difficult to say, but I vote ever-so-slightly for "true." My opinion of John Kerry is very low, but I think more of him than I do of Obama. The following seems...

Accessibility by WAH