Doc's Talk: Obama Foreign Policy Appointees: Israel To Blame For Mideast Instability, Sweeping Concessions Necessary

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Obama Foreign Policy Appointees: Israel To Blame For Mideast Instability, Sweeping Concessions Necessary

Let's imagine that it's not breathtakingly stupid to embrace the woman who kissed Suha Arafat - right after Arafat ranted about how Jews poison Palestinian children - as some kind of Atlas holding up the US-Israel alliance. I mean it's obviously asinine. But since large swaths of the Israeli media are fantasizing otherwise - eagerly helped by Obama boosters in the US - let's imagine that Clinton actually is some kind of pro-Israel bulwark. Fair enough. But isn't it a little weird how she seems to be having less than zero influence on Obama's agenda?. Obama just announced that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal will be at the center of his agenda. He's even bringing back Daniel Kurtzer - who was firmly against the security fence that all but ended suicide bombings - to push Israel on concessions. And of course none of this is surprising given how Obama's "main foreign policy sounding board" - the same guy who spent last year trying to detonate US-Israel relations - thinks that the peace process should be the US's single most important foreign policy goal:

In a rare interview that he gave to Inside the Pentagon at the end of last month... Jones urged the new administration to keep up the negotiations begun in Annapolis, warning that, "If they don't do that and they choose to start from ground zero again, then I think there would be a real tragedy, because there's real momentum and real progress here." He told the outlet that "nothing is more important" in the Middle East than a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Don't focus too much on the entirely predictable bait and switch, where hypothetical one-time offers at Annapolis become starting points for future negotiations. You might miss how the incoming National Security Adviser - with whom the President consults multiple times a day - is crafting global strategy around the myth that Israel is responsible for the length and breadth of Middle East instability. And his plan for keeping the peace once Israel is coerced into irreversible concessions? The kind of international troops who have done so much to prevent Hezbollah from rearming.

Now: when Samantha Power got dumped from the Obama campaign for calling Hillary a mean word - but not for advocating the invasion of Israel or talking darkly about "a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import" - I thought she'd eventually get brought back as Secretary of State. That was apparently an example of the "Obama paranoia" that Jeffery Goldberg obnoxiously lectured center-right Jews about. Instead Power will merely be functionally running the State Department over the coming months before taking her place as a "key adviser". So that's a relief:

Power is listed on Obama's transition Web site as part of the team reviewing national security agencies. Her duties, according to the site, will be to "ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in."... that could pave the way for Power to reemerge as a key adviser for the new president.

So Obama will formulate his policy by bouncing ideas off Jones and transmitting them to State via Power - the difference between the two being that Jones merely wants NATO troops standing in the IDF's way. And if Hillary proves insufficiently enthusiastic about pressuring Israel then Susan Rice - waiting patiently in the wings as a cabinet-level UN ambassador - will be there to replace her:

Note Her Majesty nodding along at the beginning as Obama pointedly reaffirms that he'll be the one setting policy. Lurking over her shoulder... is Susan Rice... who'll end up instead as ambassador to the UN... (1) it signals to the public that he's serious about "soft power" playing a vastly bigger role in his administration than it did in Bush's, and (2) it signals to Hillary that if she steps out of line he has someone capable of replacing her without missing a beat. How capable? Maguire points out that while Rice is known for being hawkish on intervening against genocides, she had no problem with The One's plan to pull out of Iraq notwithstanding the likely outcome.

I wonder if Rice will be able to find a different "genocide" where the US can intervene. And to think that a few weeks ago Olmert asked Bush to explain to Obama why it would be a bad idea to coerce and weaken the US's key Middle Eastern ally. If only he had known that Hillary Clinton was going to be Secretary of State.

References:
* MR Has A Question For Democratic Jews: Are You Fucking Retarded? [MR]
* Analysis: J'lem mostly pleased with Obama choices [JPost]
* Rosner's Domain: Why Israelis are generally thrilled by Clinton's appointment [Ha'aretz]
* Commentary: Obama earning Israel's confidence [McClatchy]
* Conflict Zone [TNR]
* Obama: Iran and Israel-PA peace to top agenda [JPost]
* Considering Kurtzer [Ben Smith / Politico]
* Obama mulls ex-ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer, as special Mideast envoy [Ha'aretz]
* Thin line makes vast difference to life in israel [Calgary Herald]
* National Security Pick - From a Marine to a Mediator [NYT]
* Annapolis envoy likely to advise Obama [JPost]
* Annapolis As A Rosetta Stone For How Anti-Israel Bait And Switch Diplomacy Works [MR]
* Obama NSA Pick James Jones: Hey, How About Some International Troops In The West Bank? [MR]
* Obama Draws Line In The Sand: Invading Israel OK But Calling Hillary A Mean Name Is A Firing Offense [MR]
* Obama Shill Tells Jews To Get Over Their "Obama Paranoia" [MR]
* Adviser Who Insulted Clinton Has Role in Transition [WaPo]
* Reporter to Obama: Um, didn't you belittle Hillary's foreign policy cred during the primaries? [Hot Air]
* Obama's Perfect Choice For UN Ambassador [MR]
* Obama Raises UN Ambassador's Post to Cabinet Rank..... [Zippers]
* Sophisticated UN Diplomat: Yup, Jews Are Pretty Much Nazis [MR]
* Israel asks Bush to explain its 'special relationship' with U.S. to Obama [Ha'aretz]

Previously:
* Former Peace Process Diplomats To Obama: Renewed Peace Process Guaranteed To Fail
* US Warns Israel Against Pre-Obama Attacks On Iran Or Hamas
* Obama Foreign Policy Team Pretty Much The Last People On Earth Who Think Engaging Iran Will Work

Guest Comment: Obama's advisors are a clear danger to the future of Israel: Kurtzer opposes the security fence which keeps terrorists out; Jones thinks Annapolis made real progress and wants NATO presence which will tie the hands of the IDF, not the terrorists. Remember how EU forces abandoned their posts at the Philadelphi Corridor when Hamas and other terrorists attacked?

Israel does not need and does not want foreign forces to defend it nor die for it, and none would. Susan Rice, not a supporter of Israel, has been appointed as UN ambassador. Will the US now join the 57 Islamic voting bloc? And of course, Samantha Power, is on board; she would like to destroy Israel altogether. What a team to guard over the US's only ally in the Middle East.

Aggie

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk