But it is the last section of Obama's speech that is drawing the most attention. He called on Israel to accept withdrawal to its 1967 borders as a precursor to "peace" negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas:
The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself.
I'm not sure how this is an argument for Israeli withdrawal.
Under Obama's formula, the Palestinians would begin negotiations "knowing" that their territory will include, among other things, the entire Temple Mount, including the Western Wall. Obama can't seriously believe that Israel would accept this as a starting point (or ending point) of negotiations.
So in Obama's view, the "right of return" is on the table, and it is incumbent on Israel to make further concessions, on top of acceptance of the 1967 borders--correctly labeled "indefensible" by Prime Minister Netanyahu--if it wishes to continue to exist.
Others will have more profound observations on Obama's seemingly gratuitous change in America's policy toward Israel. For the moment, let me just note this: as with Obamacare and a number of other issues, Obama evidently is acting from conviction, not political calculation. The Mearsheimer/Walt hypothesis, widely accepted on the Left, is that the Israeli lobby exerts a sinister influence on American foreign policy. The truth, however, is that the American people overwhelmingly side with Israel, for reasons that do not need to be explained to our readers. It is shared conviction and culture, not lobbying, that accounts for America's traditionally pro-Israel policy.
Obama will not gain politically by sabotaging Israel; on the contrary. He must know that his re-election is in grave jeopardy, and going out of his way to put his administration at odds with Israel will hurt, not help, his chances. So one can only conclude that Obama is genuinely, as a matter of philosophical conviction, anti-Israel.
FP: Duh! But another reason Obama took on Israel is because it is the only US ally who has a record of caving under pressure. The rest are either enemies or allies who defy him and he has no influence on. As to political consequences, I am not convinced this will hurt him. There is no contender that has a chance. And given Obama’s utter failure, that’s saying something.Under Obama's formula, the Palestinians would begin negotiations "knowing" that their territory will include, among other things, the entire Temple Mount, including the Western Wall. Obama can't seriously believe that Israel would accept this as a starting point (or ending point) of negotiations.
So in Obama's view, the "right of return" is on the table, and it is incumbent on Israel to make further concessions, on top of acceptance of the 1967 borders--correctly labeled "indefensible" by Prime Minister Netanyahu--if it wishes to continue to exist.
Others will have more profound observations on Obama's seemingly gratuitous change in America's policy toward Israel. For the moment, let me just note this: as with Obamacare and a number of other issues, Obama evidently is acting from conviction, not political calculation. The Mearsheimer/Walt hypothesis, widely accepted on the Left, is that the Israeli lobby exerts a sinister influence on American foreign policy. The truth, however, is that the American people overwhelmingly side with Israel, for reasons that do not need to be explained to our readers. It is shared conviction and culture, not lobbying, that accounts for America's traditionally pro-Israel policy.
Obama will not gain politically by sabotaging Israel; on the contrary. He must know that his re-election is in grave jeopardy, and going out of his way to put his administration at odds with Israel will hurt, not help, his chances. So one can only conclude that Obama is genuinely, as a matter of philosophical conviction, anti-Israel.
Omri Ceren: There Was Plenty That Was New About Israel In Obama’s Speech
On the question of whether the President’s call reflects policy stretching back two administrations, what’s lacking is context. Presidents Bush and Clinton certainly envisioned a final status agreement somehow involving the 1949 lines, but their versions also included a bevy of other security and diplomatic arrangements. The newness of Obama’s policy lies in taking the part of the equation that deprives Israel of strategic depth and then subtracting all the guarantees.
There’s a reason why Prime Minister Netanyahu is at this very moment calling on the Obama administration to live up to the 2004 Bush letter of assurance, as if the Israelis can’t quite believe that the President would abandon decades of assurances and then offer up new assurances in the same breath.
The administration’s multiple diplomatic offensives against Israel have been widely acknowledged as failures. Secretary of State Clinton predicted that it would lead to “the resumption of the negotiation track,” which it didn’t. Palestinian President Abbas admitted that Obama’s fixation on settlements was a White House-driven initiative that made it impossible for the Palestinians to come to the table. All of that is broadly acknowledged, even in the White House itself.
So while it should be acknowledged that the President stuck to a policy running from 2009 to today – in contrast to the policies in comparison to which they were a “sea change,” the policies of previous administrations – the question is why. It’s not a strategy that had traditionally paid dividends.
FP: Obama is so desperate to realign a declining US with Islam that he will not take an Arab/Muslim no for an answer, no matter how dismissive and hostile. This is delusional.There’s a reason why Prime Minister Netanyahu is at this very moment calling on the Obama administration to live up to the 2004 Bush letter of assurance, as if the Israelis can’t quite believe that the President would abandon decades of assurances and then offer up new assurances in the same breath.
The administration’s multiple diplomatic offensives against Israel have been widely acknowledged as failures. Secretary of State Clinton predicted that it would lead to “the resumption of the negotiation track,” which it didn’t. Palestinian President Abbas admitted that Obama’s fixation on settlements was a White House-driven initiative that made it impossible for the Palestinians to come to the table. All of that is broadly acknowledged, even in the White House itself.
So while it should be acknowledged that the President stuck to a policy running from 2009 to today – in contrast to the policies in comparison to which they were a “sea change,” the policies of previous administrations – the question is why. It’s not a strategy that had traditionally paid dividends.
J.E.Dyer: Obama and the Middle East: Taking sides
In a speech that was 99% filler, President Obama lobbed a few grenades… From the standpoint of analysis, the most important words he spoke today are in the passage I started with: “After decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.” From the standpoint of what is memorable and defining from his speech, the most important words were “antagonism toward Israel” and “Palestinians suffering humiliation.” These sentiments are interlocking themes in the theories of the modern Western left. As regards Obama’s statement on the pre-1967 line, his various audiences, from the left and right in America to the major regional actors in the Middle East, will not fail to detect them.
FP: Theories of the modern Western left is is what Obama has, nothing else. He makes speeches and everybody is expected to act accordingly. When nobody he does his “should do this, should not do that” sermoninizing spiel.Ron Radosh: Are We Facing an Iranian Missile Crisis? The Dereliction of our Media
Writing at the Fox News website, Reza Kahili notes that Die Welt’s report:
Confirms that the bilateral agreement signed in October [between Venezuela and Iran] was for a missile installation to be built inside Venezuela. Quoting diplomatic sources, Die Welt reports that, at present, the area earmarked for the missile base is the Paraguaná Peninsula, located 120 kilometers from the Colombian border. A group of engineers from Khatam Al-Anbia, the construction arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, covertly traveled to this area on the orders of Amir Hajizadeh, the commander of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force.
Even more shocking is the following:
Die Welt writes that the Iranian delegation had been ordered to focus on the plan for building the necessary foundations for air strikes. The planning and building of command stations, control bases, residential buildings, security towers, bunkers and dugouts, warheads, rocket fuel and other cloaking constructs has been assigned to other members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of Engineers. The IRGC engineers will also be interfacing with their Venezuelan counterparts in fabricating missile depots that are said to go as deep as 20 meters in the ground.
The Iranian-Venezuelan deal evidently also includes housing of Hezbollah cells and Quds forces in the new facilities, ready to expand their activity in Latin American in conjunction with drug cartels in the region, including those causing so much trouble now in Mexico. As Kahili puts it so well:
The radicals ruling Iran are emboldened by the confusion of the Obama administration in confronting Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranian regime feels that America has exhausted all of its options with is negotiation and sanctions approach and therefore no longer poses a serious threat to Iran’s nuclear drive.
FP: The disaster that is the Obama administration.Libya Revolt Sidelines Women, Who Led It
For a revolutionary movement that was started by women — the female relatives of men killed in one of Colonel Qaddafi’s jails — their exclusion at the highest levels is alienating longtime democracy activists and has added to concerns about decision-making in the three-month-old movement, which seems to grow more inscrutable by the day.
“We are having a problem now,” said Hana el-Gallal, a prominent human rights lawyer who was said to be a candidate for the education position. “In the old regime we didn’t have any voice in the economic and political sector. Now, in these two sectors we don’t have any presence.”
FP: A misogynistic spring.
“We are having a problem now,” said Hana el-Gallal, a prominent human rights lawyer who was said to be a candidate for the education position. “In the old regime we didn’t have any voice in the economic and political sector. Now, in these two sectors we don’t have any presence.”
No comments:
Post a Comment