Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obama. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obama. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

From Ian:

The Palestinian Problem Is Dying of Natural Causes
By 2040, the stone-throwing kids of the First Intifada will be close to retirement age, and the gun-toting young men who dominate today's Palestinian employment picture (or those who still are alive) will have families. If they missed out on high-tech jobs, the spillover from the West Bank's economic growth—driven in turn by Israel's economic miracle—will keep them employed in service industries. Absent additional violence, the West Bank will flourish while Egypt and Syria descend into penury and chaos.

There is no urgency to make peace, except in the minds of the Palestinians' present leaders. The world has allowed them to rule a little fiefdom as warlords of private armies, with little accounting for billions in foreign aid, and the opportunity to indulge in a grand ideological tantrum on the tab of Western donors.

The window is closing for radical Islam. That makes the present an exceptionally dangerous period, because the radicals know that it is closing. Contrary to what Obama said on May 22, the radicals understand better than anyone else that time and demographics are against them. The Palestinians of the West Bank are better off than any other Arabs in the region by any tangible measure—health, literacy, higher education, per capital income. They have the good luck to reside next to one of the world's most dynamic economies. In a generation the world may have moved beyond the likes of Mahmoud Abbas. That gives Abbas an incentive to gamble while he still has chips on the table. If the radicals can be contained through the present generation, though, they can be extirpated in the next.
The UN Agency for Palestinians Is Even Worse Than You Think It Is
Last month, news broke that the Swiss head of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA)—the organization that caters to Palestinian refugees and their descendants—promoted his mistress so that she could join him on his frequent and expensive travels, which his subordinates complain have kept him away from his duties. His deputy, meanwhile, used her influence to have her husband promoted. While these revelations have been greeted with outrage by some of the European governments that fund UNRWA, Alex Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky argue that these abuses are the natural consequence of what has long been known about the organization:

In the past, UNRWA has . . . employ[ed] Hamas members and us[ed] anti-Semitic textbooks [in its schools]. Rockets have also been found hidden at UNRWA schools on several occasions. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that an organization so corrupt at the bottom is even more corrupt at the top. . . .

One lesson to be learned from this scandal is that funders must demand internal controls, external audits, and public access to information. . . . Scrutiny is also needed on the Palestinian Authority, which uses foreign aid to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in pensions to terrorists and their families.

A second lesson concerns the danger of devoting an international organization to a single population. UNRWA was effectively taken over by Palestinians decades ago. Politicization began at the bottom with school curricula, but crept upward. . . .

This latest scandal is an opportunity for the U.S., together with other angry donors, to demand a phase-out plan for the entire organization. UNRWA’s 30,000 employees could join the Palestinian Authority, which would take over its health, education, and welfare responsibilities like the state it claims to be. UNRWA’s expensive international cadre, including lobbyists in Washington and Geneva, should be disbanded. And Palestinian residents of Arab states . . . should become citizens of those states, as they are in Jordan, or of the Palestinian Authority. If Palestinians truly desire a state, they should join the call for UNRWA’s abolition.

PMW: The PA initiated clashes on the Temple Mount
A guide to the Temple Mount published in 1925 by the Supreme Moslem Council of Mandate Palestine declares that its "identity with Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute." This senior Muslim authority repeated this confirmation of Jewish and Christian traditions in 1950 in a new guide, when Jerusalem and the Temple Mount were then under Jordanian rule. Despite these repeated affirmations by the top Muslim authority of the land, the Palestinian Authority is constantly attempting to rewrite even Muslim tradition, by denying the Jewish nature of the Temple Mount. Accordingly, it refers to visits by Jews to this holy site as "invasions" and calls on Palestinians and the International community to defend the site and prevent its "Judaization." The PA deceptively refers to the entire Temple Mount as the "Al Aqsa Mosque", even though the actual mosque sits on a relatively small area in the south-western corner of the mount.

On Sunday, Israel marked the 9th day of the Jewish month of Av. According to Jewish tradition, on that day both the first and second Temples were destroyed. The same day marked the start of the Moslem Eid Al-Adha [Feast of the Sacrifice]

While some sources have blamed the Sunday clashes on the Jordanians, Palestinian Media Watch can show that it was the PA who was most instrumental in instigating the clashes and ensuing violence.

In an attempt to disrupt Jews' right to access the Mount on Sunday, the PA took a number of steps, including changing the times of the Moslem prayers on the Mount and calling for mosques around Jerusalem to remain closed in order to "recruit" as many people as possible to defend the site against the "invasions."

While the published time schedule for the 5 daily Moslem prayers, set the first prayer time for 04.29, the second (last morning prayer) for 05.56, and the third (first afternoon prayer) for 12.44 on Aug. 9, 2019 the PA appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories decided to delay the second morning prayer to 07.30. The goal was to ensure that as many people would be present on the Temple Mount when the Jews were scheduled to start arriving.

Friday, June 29, 2018

  • Friday, June 29, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon


The new article in The Atlantic, Jared Kushner’s Middle East Fantasy by former Obama administration Philip Gordon and Prem Kumar, is fascinating - but not because of their analysis.

They argue that the Kushner interview in Palestinian newspaper Al Quds shows that he is hopelessly naive or, as they say, deeply cynical.

They say that, based on this interview, Kushner is suffering from a series of fantasies:

The first fantasy is the notion that the obstruction of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas—who refused to meet with Kushner on his latest trip—can be countered by taking the peace plan “directly to the Palestinian people.” Kushner suggests that Abbas is avoiding him because he’s “scared we will release our peace plan and that the Palestinian people will actually like it.” That’s not likely. Abbas is indeed unpopular with most Palestinians—his approval rating hovers just above 30 percent—but it’s hardly because he’s too hardline on Israel. In our own extensive discussions with Abbas and his negotiating team as White House Middle East advisers during the Obama administration, we found them deterred most of all by the fear they could not sell further concessions to their people, who were seething about years of continued Israeli settlement expansion, land confiscation, and increased limits on Palestinian movement.
Did it never occur to these "experts" that Abbas was using his people as an excuse not to make peace, and that in fact the people want to end this useless situation already if only he would accept a couple more of Israel's security demands? If there was peace, Abbas would actually have to govern - balance the books, no longer rely on foreign aid for nearly everything, actually build institutions on his own instead of relying on European NGOs. But a long as he keeps refusing any peace offers, he keeps what he wants - Palestinians in the headlines, occasional flare-ups, boundless opportunities to bash Israel.

The biggest proof that Abbas doesn't want peace is his pretending that his people are against it. He never pushed real peace with Israel in any speech, any statement - he only bragged that he hasn't changed the PLO's positions since 1988.

Our "experts" have been fooled by believing Palestinian leaders uncritically instead of using some of the skepticism they dedicate to Netanyahu to Abbas as well.

Kushner’s second fantasy is the idea that he and the administration he represents are better placed to succeed than all their failed predecessors—a goal that seems to animate Trump as much as achieving Middle East peace itself. But while it is already clear that Trump is a terrible dealmaker who has yet to conclude any significant international agreement (the unilateral concessions to North Korea in exchange for a vague pledge to “work towards” denuclearization do not qualify), Middle East peace may be the issue on which he is least well-placed to succeed. While all U.S. administrations have always been closer to Israel than to the Palestinians, they all at least tried to play the role of honest broker in the name of finding some workable compromise, and were seen as necessary partners in the eyes of Palestinians.
How has this "even handedness" worked out so far? And in fact, the Obama administration demanded from Israel far more that they demanded from Palestinians, at least in public - which is where it matters.

Even so, the Palestinians spurned them.

So a new approach is not such a bad idea. The Obama approach failed spectacularly. And yet he still blamed Israel.

The third Kushner fantasy is that the Arab Gulf states, Egypt, and Jordan will help him overcome these major challenges. ...There is no doubt Kushner heard positive words from Arab friends in private meetings on his just-finished four-day trip to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Qatar, before going to Israel. But he should not hold his breath waiting for those leaders to publicly embrace positions on peace that the Palestinians—and the vast majority of their populations—reject. This is especially true on the issue of Jerusalem, where any softening of the Saudi or Egyptian backing for Palestinians would be immediately denounced—and taken advantage of—by their rivals in Iran, Qatar, and Turkey.
It's happening already. These "experts" are not looking at Gulf media. There is a sea change. There is public lip service to Palestinians but the anger at the Hamas/PA split has been growing for a decade. There will always be a reticence to publicly embrace Israel but the pro-Israel tilt of Jordanian, Egyptian, Saudi and Bahraini leadership is hard to ignore.

Iran already accuses Saudi Arabia of being "Zionist." It has for a long time. Has it hurt the Saudis at all?

The fourth fantasy is that the Palestinians can be bought off with economic assistance to compensate for political losses. In his interview with the Palestinian newspaper, Kushner suggested that the Trump administration could “attract very significant investments in infrastructure … that will lead to increases in GDP and we also hope a blanket of peaceful coexistence.” Putting aside that the Trump administration has not even made or been able to attract major investments in U.S. infrastructure, which makes one wonder about the West Bank and Gaza, this emphasis on economic issues has been tried unsuccessfully many times before. During the Oslo era of the 1990s, then the 2002 Roadmap for Peace and the Bush administration’s Annapolis process, and finally Secretary of State John Kerry’s effort during the Obama administration, successive U.S. administrations have tried to enhance the prospects for peace by improving conditions on the ground. It is of course laudable to promote much-needed economic development in the West Bank and Gaza, but Kushner should know by now that prosperity will never substitute for political peace. The key issues remain borders and sovereignty; security; settlements and occupation; refugees; and Jerusalem. No Palestinian leader can survive in office by promising economic benefits alone.
The media leaks of the Kushner/Trump plan is far, far more expansive and global than anything the previous peace pushes had. Because they were all thinking in terms of economic benefit only for Palestinians, and not economic benefits to the entire region.

Ordinary Palestinians who have not yet been thoroughly brainwashed by decades of incitement by "peacemaker" Abbas just want to raise their families in peace. Arguably, the biggest reason things are relatively quiet in the West Bank is because some 100,000 Palestinian Arabs work in Israel - for wages that are double what they can make in the territories - and this is a significant part of their GDP.

They aren't the BDSers that Gordon and Kumar pretend they are, based on Abbas' lies about how his people are so radical and are forcing him to reject peace. They want to make money, they want easy access to jobs, they want good schools and hospitals.
Finally, there is the problem that Israelis under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will almost certainly never agree to the sort of deal that would be necessary to make Palestinian or Arab acceptance even remotely feasible. 
This is a non-sequitor. Here is a plan that Netanyahu can almost certainly accept - it is the Palestinian leaders who will reject it. Which they did for the plans that were far more tilted their way. Why blame Netanyahu?

Notice the bias: Palestinians rejecting peace plans is Israel's fault because Palestinian demands and preconditions are reasonable and Israel's are not.

This is not analysis - it is an after the fact attempt to pretend that the Obama vision still has relevance.

Because Gordon and Kumar are dinosaurs. They are so certain that their vision of a two state solution is the only viable one that they are too blind to admit that there is a chance - still remote, of course, but a chance - to build a new Middle East based on shared interests, on Israel cooperating more and more with Arab states, a model that can eventually benefit Palestinians as well.

As long as they continue their rejectionism, the plan is indeed to sideline the Palestinians until the Palestinians themselves understand that they can partake in the new economic boom that can result from closer Israeli ties with the major Arab states. I'm guessing, but I would think that the plan will include Arab states allowing Palestinians to become citizens, and many would take advantage of that to move to the Gulf and enrich the Gulf economy and also to send money to family back home. Saudi Arabia wants to modernize - Palestinians are the least lazy, best educated and most motivated Arabs that can help them out.

Gordon and Kumar are looking at the Middle East through the glasses of their own Obama fantasies, not reality.

From what I can tell from leaks about the plan, it is astonishing in breadth and scope, as well as audacity. We know the Obama methods crashed and burned - why try to make the same mistake dozens of times?

As unlikely as the Kushner/Greenblatt/Trump plan is, it is generating far more interest from Arabs than anything Obama ever did. It is more ambitious. And it correctly looks at the entire region rather than continue the utterly useless Oslo model where the Palestinian leadership is encouraged and rewarded to always reject peace in hope that something better will come along.

In the Oslo days, Palestinians could tell the Arab world to reject any plan not to their liking. And they did, often, to buttress their positions. Those days are very, very numbered - but Western diplomats haven't caught up with reality. The frustration in Palestinian media and leadership with Jordanian and Egyptian deals with Israel, and with Saudi rejection of Palestinian intransigence, is palpable.

But invisible to these "experts."

Think about it - these two former Obama dinosaurs are unwilling to even support a peace plan. Their own plans encouraged terror and intransigence, but anything to them is better than the idea that Trump's team can make peace.

They'd rather have war.





We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.


Thursday, October 08, 2020

From Ian:

Noah Rothman: Biden’s Repudiation of Obama’s Foreign Policy
In 2013, Obama invited Moscow to play peacemaker in the Syrian conflict, and his administration insisted—all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding—that Russia had successfully negotiated the liquidation of Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpile. The fateful move preserved the Assad regime, set the stage for Russian military intervention in the conflict in 2015, and preserved the conditions that eventually gave rise to the Islamic State. Only after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 did the Obama administration reluctantly impose targeted economic sanctions. But Obama dismissed the invasion and annexation of sovereign European territory as a sign that Russia was a mere “regional power” exerting “less influence” on the global stage. The extent of Russia’s geopolitical ambitions would not become clear to the president until Moscow brazenly interfered with the 2016 election cycle—too late.

By contrast, and despite President Trump’s sordid compulsion to praise Vladimir Putin, this administration preserved Obama-era sanctions on Moscow and tightened the screws. This White House imposed Magnitsky Act sanctions on Russia’s Putin-linked elite—sanctions that the Obama administration lobbied Congress against. The Trump administration provided lethal arms to the Ukrainian government, expelled Russian diplomatic personnel, and seized Russian consular property. The U.S. military under Trump has engaged in set-piece land battles with Russian mercenaries in Syria. This administration oversaw the expansion of the NATO alliance, despite covert Russian action intended to derail that effort, and abandoned the defunct 1987 intermediate-range nuclear-forces treaty, a compact to which even the Obama administration conceded only the United States was beholden.

If Joe Biden has determined that it is in America’s interest to get tougher on the rogue regimes that govern these two states, that’s great. There is, however, precious little evidence to suggest that Biden has had a genuine change of heart.

The former vice president has, in fact, pledged to end Cuba’s economic and diplomatic isolation, which he claims stifles Cuban entrepreneurs and strengthens the regime in Havana. His vague but detectable hostility toward fracking would relieve the economic pressure America’s virtual energy independence has imposed on the Kremlin. He has tacitly endorsed a de facto partition of Syria, pockets of which would be administered by Russia and the Western coalition—a move that would legitimize Russia’s troop presence in the Levant and commit the U.S. to an open-ended conflict in defense of no well-defined interest.

Though he didn’t do much to prove his thesis, Diehl is right: Joe Biden does seem to have learned from past mistakes. In the case of these two pariah regimes, those mistakes were Barack Obama’s, not Donald Trump’s.
In Phone Call, Israel’s Netanyahu and Russia’s Putin Discuss Iranian ‘Aggression’ in Middle East
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke by phone on Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

According to a statement put out by Netanyahu’s office, the two leaders talked about “regional security issues, the Iranian aggression and the situation in Syria.”

“They also discussed advancing bilateral cooperation in the fight against the coronavirus,” it added.

A Kremlin statement listed Netanyahu as one of a dozen world leaders who called Putin on Wednesday to wish him a happy 68th birthday.

“In every conversation, the leaders touched upon the development of bilateral relations as well as topical regional problems,” the Kremlin said.
Caroline Glick: It's Time for Trump to Soberly Confront the Rising Turkish Threat
All of these aspects of Trump's foreign policies are vital for developing and maintaining a successful U.S. policy toward Erdogan's Turkey, as Erdogan exposes himself as a foe interested in pitting all sides against one another to enable his efforts to construct a new Ottoman Empire. Many commentators advocate expelling Turkey from NATO. But it isn't clear that a head-on confrontation with Erdogan would neutralize him. It could well empower him by helping him to rally the Turkish public behind him at a time when Turkey's economy stands on the brink of collapse.

Given Erdogan's multipronged aggression, the first goal of a realistic policy would be to diminish his power by severely weakening Turkey economically. This may mean imposing economic sanctions on Turkey for its aggression against Greece and Cyprus. Or it may mean simply giving Turkey a gentle push over the economic cliff.

Without raising the issue of removing Turkey from NATO, the U.S. can simply not sell Turkey advanced platforms while demonstrating its support for Greece and Cyprus, as well as Israel and its Arab partners.

True, China is already seeking to supplant the U.S. in sponsoring the Turkish economy and selling Turkey arms—but by keeping Turkey in NATO, the U.S. still has more leverage over Turkey than China.

A passive-aggressive policy for diminishing Erdogan's power and the threat he can mount is right up Trump's alley. Trump doesn't often directly attack his opponents. He embraced North Korean leader Kim Jong-un even as he imposed the harshest economic sanctions ever on North Korea and redesignated it a state sponsor of terrorism. He has acted similarly with Putin and with Erdogan himself.

Erdogan's belief that he can rebuild the Ottoman Empire while attacking EU and NATO members, the U.S., its key allies in the Middle East as well as Russia, owes to his narcissism that Obama and Biden did so much to feed.

With Erdogan now openly threatening multiple U.S. allies, it is increasingly apparent that the largest and fastest rising threat to stability and peace in the Middle East is Turkey—and the victor in next month's U.S. presidential election will have no lead time to deal with it.

Trump's reality-based foreign policy, his preference for indirect confrontations and empowerment of U.S. partners to defend themselves from aggression, rather than dictating their actions or fighting their battles for them, give the president the flexibility to diminish Erdogan's maneuver room, his economic independence and his popularity at home—while also empowering U.S. allies directly affected by the strongman's aggression to stand up to him effectively, with or without direct U.S. involvement.
Tarek Fatah: Expel Turkey from NATO
Turkey's Erdogan denounced the call for a ceasefire and, according to reports, has lent its US-supplied F-16s to Azerbaijan's forces along with drones that are equipped with Canadian technology.

This forced Ottawa to act. On Oct. 5, Foreign Affairs Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne halted all military export permits to Turkey.

The reaction by Turkey was swift. The foreign ministry in Ankara accused Ottawa of "double standards" arguing: "There is no explanation for blocking defence equipment exports to a NATO ally while."

NATO ally? That's quite rich for Turkey's pan-Islamists to invoke NATO as their defence.

The only role Turkey has played in NATO since the collapse of the USSR is that of a Fifth Column. A country that has been a conduit for ISIS jihadis, the Muslim Brotherhood. A country that deploys refugees to threaten Europe and Greece while occupying Cyprus and festering war in Libya, is no NATO ally.

Time has come for Canada to ask for Turkey's expulsion from NATO. Turkey is a menace to Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, Syria and Libya. It has eyes on Bulgaria, Rumania and the Balkans, which it had to relinquish in the Lausanne Treaty that is approaching its centennial.

Don't be surprised if Erdogan annuls the century-old treaty to re-establish the Ottoman Caliphate that will make Central Asia its Turkic backyard after Armenia, the only obstacle, is eliminated.

Wednesday, July 29, 2020

Joe Biden is ahead of President Trump in key battleground states, according to a new Fox News poll, and the lead is significant. Biden passed Trump by 11 percentage points in Pennsylvania, 13 points in Minnesota, and 9 points in Michigan. The question is why, considering a Rasmussen poll released June 29, found that 38% of voters believe that Joe Biden has dementia. That’s almost four out of ten voters.

It’s no secret the mainstream media is pulling for Joe Biden. They want Donald Trump dethroned and a Democrat—any Democrat—installed in the White House. In spite of this fact, they too, cannot help but notice Joe Biden’s little (and not so little) brain farts. 

The media has tried hard to recast Biden’s strange utterings as “gaffes.” See, for instance, here, here, here, and here. But it’s not a “gaffe” when he falls asleep during Hillary’s endorsement. 
It's not a gaffe when he has his wife do the talking so he won’t have to speak. 

It's not a gaffe when he has brain freeze. 

Not a gaffe, but a memory issue, when he forgets the President’s name.

Especially not when the name of the president he served under is forgotten not once, but several times. 
Which is why Obama told Joe Biden he didn’t have to do this—didn’t have to run for president. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

Joe Biden’s brain issues, of course, may not actually be dementia. The fact is, the presidential candidate has had surgery for not one but two aneurysms. Remember the bloody eye incident when Biden’s eye literally filled with blood on live television?

The hubbub surrounding this event prompted Biden to talk about his experiences with brain surgery in 1988. From the Washington Examiner:

“I ended up with what they call a cranial aneurysm,” Biden said at a campaign event on Friday. “I had to be rushed to a hospital in the middle of a snowstorm, and the fact is, the president was nice enough to offer a helicopter to get me there. I couldn’t go up because of the altitude. My fire company got me down in time for [a] 13-hour operation and saved my life.”

Biden suffered the burst aneurysm in 1988, when he was a Delaware senator. Believing that he was close to death, a Catholic priest was preparing to administer Biden's last rites. Surgeons clipped a second aneurysm before it bust a few months later.

A later piece goes into a bit more detail:

At the time of Biden’s brush with death in 1988, his wife, Jill Biden, feared that he would never be the same. In a forthcoming autobiography, “Where the Light Enters," Jill recounts Joe's doctor telling the family that there was a significant chance he’d have permanent neurological damage, particularly after he suffered a second aneurysm, a condition in which an artery becomes weak and bulges out.

"Our doctor told us there was a 50-50 chance Joe wouldn't survive surgery," she wrote. "He also said that it was even more likely that Joe would have permanent brain damage if he survived. And if any part of his brain would be adversely affected, it would be the area that governed speech."

This is a candid account of what happened back in 1988. But does this past history have implications for the present? And are Biden and his wife still being upfront with the public today? From the same piece:

The last time Biden disclosed information about his health was in 2008 when Dr. Matthew Parker, a physician the Obama campaign selected when Biden was the running mate, spoke to the press. Biden’s actual doctor, John Eisold, the physician who attended to Biden and the rest of Congress, was not the one to present the medical records...Parker said he didn’t know whether Biden had more aneurysms, and said “everything that could be done is being done.”

From the information revealed, it was not clear how often Biden has been screened for aneurysms, and there wasn't any other information provided when he was vice president. In contrast, records show that Barack Obama had at least four medical checkups during his presidency.

No law requires presidents, vice presidents, or candidates to have a medical checkup or to disclose what comes of it.

The article also makes the point that if Joe Biden had two aneurysms, he could well have another:

Dr. Babu Welch, a neurological surgeon with University of Texas-Southwestern’s O’Donnell Brain Institute, said that people who have had one aneurysm can always have another. People are supposed to undergo regular screenings shortly after they have an aneurysm, but then can space them out further as time goes on, he said.

Dr. Gavin Britz, director of the Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, said his research has revealed that people have a decrease in life expectancy after an aneurysm. The key, he said, is to make sure to catch them before they rupture.

The New York Times asks whether Joe Biden might have developed another aneurysm going so far as to suggest that having had two aneurysms, Biden is actually “more likely” to have a third:

A question arises: Has Mr. Biden developed a new aneurysm over the last two decades that could burst?

Doctors, who long thought that berry aneurysms were a once-in-a-lifetime event, now generally believe that they can recur. About 5 percent or less of patients who have had a berry aneurysm develop new ones at the original site or elsewhere in the brain.

“Over the last two decades,” said Dr. Robert F. Spetzler of the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, “we have learned much more about aneurysms, and the fact is that when you have had one aneurysm, you are more likely to develop another one. Although the likelihood is very low, it does exist.”

Are Joe’s “gaffes” a result of his aneurysm, or from his brain surgeries? And what would happen if another aneurysm were to burst while Joe was in office? That last may be a bit difficult to predict, but Wikipedia offers a history of what happened at that time, pointing out that Biden had a serious complication. We also learn that back then, Biden was sidelined from work for a full seven months, and that he was told his chances for a full recovery were somewhat slim (emphasis added):

In 1988, Biden suffered two brain aneurysms, one on the right side and one on the left. Each required surgery with high risk of long-term impact on brain functionality. In February 1988, after suffering from several episodes of increasingly severe neck pain, Biden was taken by long-distance ambulance to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and given lifesaving surgery to correct an intracranial berry aneurysm that had begun leaking. While recuperating, he suffered a pulmonary embolism, a major complication.

Another operation to repair a second aneurysm, which had caused no symptoms but was at risk of bursting, was performed in May 1988. The hospitalization and recovery kept Biden from his duties in the Senate for seven months.

In retrospect, Biden's family came to believe the early end to his presidential campaign had been a blessing in disguise, for had he still been campaigning in 1988, he might well not have stopped to seek medical attention and the condition might have become unsurvivable. In 2013, Biden said, "they take a saw and they cut your head off" and "they literally had to take the top of my head off." He also said he was told he would have less than a 50% chance of full recovery.

Biden has, until now, failed to share any appraisal of his cognitive state. And some voters may be getting nervous about that with November not so far away. The Hill had a piece in early July entitled, “Joe Biden must release the results of his cognitive tests — voters need to know.” The piece references more voter polls:

A recent Zogby poll found that 55 percent of likely voters surveyed thought it was “much more” and “somewhat more likely” that Biden is in the early stages of dementia, while 45 percent thought it was less likely. That number included 56 percent of independents and 32 percent of Democrats.

More worrisome for Biden, perhaps, is that about 60 percent of young voters between the ages of 18 and 29 thought it likely that Biden is suffering early-onset dementia, along with 61 percent of Hispanics. The good news is that only 43 percent of blacks doubted Biden’s mental capacity.

Another piece, from Chicago Sun Times (July 26), asks, “Can Joe Biden keep it together?” and speaks of “whispered doubt” suggesting the public may be concerned about Biden’s fitness for office:

There is a dreadful possibility, a whispered doubt that lurks at every Biden appearance.

“I watched, and sometimes cringed, at his performances in debates and other public appearances,” Laura Washington writes. “Biden stumbled over and mangled names, facts and concepts. At times, he seemed confused.”

It is only natural that Trump supporters would attempt to capitalize on Joe’s oopsies. Hence we have this ad from the Committee to Defend the President which speaks not about “gaffes” but asks if Joe Biden “has the mental capacity to keep America safe,” and then comes right out with it: “Does Joe Biden have dementia?”

Politico (July 3) emphasized the meanness of the dementia accusations referring to this election cycle as “The Dementia Campaign.”  An excerpt:

Just listen to Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night, the day after Joe Biden’s big Super Tuesday victory and the victory speech in which he was momentarily confused over which side of the podium his wife and sister were standing. “As a smart friend said last night, Joe Biden has spent his entire life trying to succeed in presidential politics,” the Fox News host chortled, “and now he has: Too bad he’s not there to enjoy it. Pretty funny.”

Politico wants to de-emphasize the dementia/brain damage and shift the focus to the mild impairment of age, stressing that we have a geriatric political culture:

The issue is especially acute now that so much power in American government is held by people older than 65. While rates of dementia are going down gradually in the United States, 65 is the age at which 20 to 25 percent of people have mild cognitive impairment and 10 percent have dementia, according geriatric researcher Kenneth Langa at the University of Michigan. Six members of the Supreme Court are over 65, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will turn 80 on March 26, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last month turned 78.

Joe’s brain issues, however much the liberal left wants to distract us, make it really difficult to resist watching and laughing at his latest “gaffes” such as the one about nurses blowing into his nostrils to get him moving.

That “go home and get me pillows,” sends me into giggle fits, each and every time. But then I feel a little bit mean and even voyeuristic. And I can’t help but think: It’s not nice they’re putting this brain damaged guy out there like this. Why are they doing this: running this guy with brain damage?

I know what the conspiracy theorists think: if Biden wins the presidency, which he might win in spite of dementia, because he’s the Not Trump, he won’t be the one making the decisions. Instead, he will be a puppet. The Manchurian Candidate come to life. 

So who is really running the show? Deep State? Soros? Obama?

Someone/something else? And what does this mean for Israel, and for the world at large? 

Will Biden hang in there, or will the pressure and stress become too much, say during a debate with President Trump? And if it does become too much for the man who has twice undergone the neurosurgeon's knife, what happens next? Who will step in and take over the show?

Your guess is as good as mine. Which means that about all we can do is sit back and watch this public circus with guilty pleasure and not a little incredulity at the fact that, should nothing and no one intervene, the Democrats will vote for Joe Biden, despite his cognitive issues, come November. 

Because they definitely choose brain damage over Trump. 



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Friday, January 17, 2020

From Ian:

Ruthie Blum: Right from wrong - Neda Soltan’s message from the grave
ON JUNE 29, nine days after Neda’s cruel end, Iran’s Guardian Council conducted a “vote recount” at the behest of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – who had declared Ahmadinejad’s victory a “divine assessment” – and concluded, of course, that the election results were sound.

Shouts of “death to the dictator” from balconies throughout Iran ensued. Though the chanting was in Farsi, placards denouncing Ahmadinejad all were written in English – a clear signal of the protesters’ plea for outside sympathy and aid.

Unfortunately for the trapped and subjugated Iranian people, however, the administration in Washington was now headed by Barack Obama. Obama had entered the White House a mere few months earlier with the aim of reversing the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, especially those relating to the Middle East in general and the Iranian threat in particular.

Believing that the path to ridding Iran of its nuclear and hegemonic ambitions would be through goodwill gestures to the mullahs, Obama not only abandoned the Bush-coined term “axis of evil” to define state sponsors of terrorism – with Iran at the top of the list – but referred to the militia-monitored election process there as a “robust debate.”

He then continued to stress that America was going to engage in diplomacy with the Islamic Republic, regardless of who was at the helm.

Well, the proud “leader from behind” certainly kept his word on that one. As the regime in Tehran jailed, tortured and mowed down enough demonstrators to make the others recoil in fear – and Neda’s image faded from global consciousness – Obama got busy with his P5+1 counterparts in China, France, Britain, Russia and Germany orchestrating and pushing for the bogus nuclear deal with Iran that was reached in July 2015.
There's a revolution going on in the Mideast. Why doesn't the West see that?
Surveying the anti-government protests in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran, as well as the refusal of the Syrian revolutionaries to surrender, the Canadian journalist Terry Glavin writes:

There is a revolution going on. It has been underway in fits and starts for years. It unites Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, and Iraqis. Its object is the sundering of a bloody Khomeinist despotism that runs from the [Islamist dictatorship] in Tehran through the Assad regime in Damascus to Hizballah in Lebanon, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and the Hashd al-Shaabi militias in Iraq, which have now insinuated themselves into every branch of the Iraqi state.

It’s all very well for Canada’s Justin Trudeau and the United Kingdom’s Boris Johnson and Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Emmanuel Macron to want to force Tehran to get back in line with Barack Obama’s nuclear-rapprochement arrangement, which Donald Trump has renounced. But the genie will not be put back in the bottle so easily.

It was Obama’s nuclear deal that freed up [Iran’s] Quds Force to enforce its ghastly Khomeinist hegemony throughout the region in the first place, and now, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani is warning that European soldiers in the region, not just American soldiers, may soon find themselves on the Quds Force’s target list. Counseling a return to the Obama-era status quo is not a call to de-escalation. Don’t believe it.

It is profoundly ill-advised. It may suit the purposes of some Canadian and European firms that are scraping for a place for themselves in the Iranian economy, much of which is owned and controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. But it would be a profound betrayal of the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Iraq, who have already known little but betrayal from six successive Democratic and Republican administrations in the United States, and from the “West” generally, Canada included.
UK adds entire Hezbollah movement to terror blacklist
Britain's finance ministry on Friday said it had added Lebanon's entire Hezbollah movement to its list of terrorist groups subject to asset freezing.

The ministry previously only targeted the Shiite organisation's military wing but has now listed the whole group after the government designated it a terrorist organisation last March.

The change requires any individual or institution in Britain with accounts or financial services connected to Hezbollah to suspend them or face prosecution.

The group had "publicly denied a distinction between its military and political wings," the Treasury said in a notice posted on its website.

"The group in its entirety is assessed to be concerned in terrorism and was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK in March 2019," it added.

"This listing includes the Military Wing, the Jihad Council and all units reporting to it, including the External Security Organisation."

A finance ministry spokesman said the change followed its annual review of the asset freezing register, and brought it into line with the 2019 decision by the interior minister to blacklist all of Hezbollah.

"The UK remains committed to the stability of Lebanon and the region, and we continue to work closely with our Lebanese partners," the spokesman added.

Tuesday, January 05, 2021

Before the Trump administration changed the rules for what peace in the Middle East could look like, Obama also tried his hand at opening ties with problematic countries based on the invitation he made in his 2009 inaugural address that "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” This led to improving relations with Myanmar in 2012 and Cuba in 2014. 
 
Unlike the Abraham Accord, there was not a lot of excitement and fanfare, and not much in the way of a ripple effect. But Obama did consider something more substantial in the Middle East during his last year in office.
 
In April 2016, he tried to play broker, but not between Israel and the Arab world. Instead, Obama tried to negotiate peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran:
The White House is pinning its hopes for a more stable Middle East in years to come on the uncertain prospect that it can encourage a working relationship—what Mr. Obama has called a “cold peace”—between Saudi Arabia and Iran

...“You need a different kind of relationship between the Gulf countries and Iran—one that’s less prone to proxy conflicts—and that’s something that would be good for the region as a whole,” the official said. “Promoting that kind of dialogue is something the president will want to speak to the leaders about.”

...But the strategy requires at least some buy-in from highly skeptical Saudi leaders and other Persian Gulf states
All you need do is substitute Israel for Iran and you have the basic outline for the Abraham Accords, based on the goal of a "warm peace" between Israel and those same Gulf states -- and other Arab states as well. But by focusing on Iran instead, not even a cold peace was achieved.
 
Obama's failure to bring Iran and the Saudi's is not surprising.
After all:
The Saudis are Sunni, Iran is Shia.
The Saudis are Arabs, Iran is Persian.
(The fact that Iran is a global sponsor of terrorism and working on making a nuclear bomb didn't help.)
 
Don't underestimate the rift between Sunnis and Shiites.
 
In his book, The Closed Circle, David Pryce-Jones writes about the turmoil following the death of Mohammad, whose only family heir was his daughter, Fatima. There was no agreement on how Mohammad's successor was to be chosen:
Leadership of the community might pass through her and her descent, or through the Prophet's companions who were best qualified. A majority, known as Sunni, preferred election. A minority, known as Shia, preferred the principle of heredity, devolving through Ali, the cousin and husband of the Prophet's daughter, and those descendants of his specifically designated for the succession by their own immediate predecessor. Disputed authority made for the fragmentation of Islam. Three of Muhammad's four immediate successors [including Mohammad's son-in-law, Ali], known as caliphs, were murdered. Turning upon legitimacy, the quarrel between Sunni and Shia became irreconcilable. [emphasis added; p. 28]
This fighting among Muslims has never stopped. The situation in Syria is just one example of many of how divided the Arab/Muslim world is against itself.
 
But in addition to the Sunni-Shiite rift, how does the Arab-Persian rift play out?
 
Back in June 2019, Mordechai Kedar -- who served for 25 years in IDF military intelligence -- gave a talk to
EMET, the Endowment for Middle East Truth on the Middle East
.
 

 
One of the topics Kedar touched upon was the roots behind the hatred between the Saudis and the Iranians (starts at 36:05).

He traces this tension back to the 7th century, when the Arabs were spreading Islam from the area that is today Saudi Arabia -- starting with Syria, Lebanon and what is today Israel, spreading out to the east (to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan) and to the West (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria Morocco and Northern  Africa) and then up north (Spain).

In the year 636CE, the Arabs defeated the Persia army, despite the larger Persian army. Their forces were worn down both by wars with Byzantine as well as by moral and political corruption within.
 
But the differences between the two armies was more than a matter of size. Kedar points out the erudition of the Persians, many of whom were adept at mathematics, chemistry, physics and astronomy, having made great contributions in these areas -- but because of their corruption, they ended up being defeated by the Arabs, who in those days were illiterate.

Following their defeat, many of the Persians were sold into slavery, a degrading and humiliating procedure --
all the more so for academics being sold into slavery.
 
The Persian slaves freely converted to Islam, knowing this would get them out of slavery -- only to find that the Arabs put taxes on them, taxes they could not pay so that they were forced instead to work for the Arabs.
 
And so they were cheated a second time.
 
As Kedar puts it:
Till this very day, the Persians have not forgotten and did not forgive what the Arabs did to them. And this underlies the enmity between the Persians and the Saudis.
The Saudis are the descendants of those who did this to the Persians.
 
Mordechai Kedar also spoke about this in Hebrew at BESA in March of that same year, starting at about 15:45 (video will automatically start there.)



Jews are not the only ones with long memories.
 
Considering the nature of such enmity, it is no wonder that Obama's attempt to bring the Iranians and the Saudis together failed.
 
But by the same token, this hatred casts doubt on the wisdom of Obama's Iran Deal as a whole, on the direction it was taking prior to Trump taking office and on Biden's declared intention to resurrect the deal.
 
If anything, this background verifies the need for a Middle East coalition against Iran.

Friday, December 25, 2020

From Ian:

‘We Do Not Live in Fear’: Israeli Women Encourage Running in Memory of Esther Horgen
Israelis woke up on Monday to the horrible news that the lifeless body of 52-year-old Esther Horgen, a mother-of-six from the community of Tel Menashe in Samaria, was found at around 2 am in a forest near her home after she went for a power walk on Sunday afternoon and never returned. Her husband, Benjamin, alerted security officials when she didn’t make it back.

On Thursday, JNS reported that Israel’s Shin Bet security service arrested a Palestinian suspect from the Jenin area in connection with the murder. Details of the investigation remain under a gag order.

Police are trying to assess whether the incident was a nationalistically motivated terror attack. The Samaria Regional Council said the murder was without a doubt an act of terror, saying Horgen’s skull had been crushed with police believing the weapon to have been a rock.

Friends and family gathered in Tel Menashe on Tuesday to pay their final respects to Horgen before she was laid to rest.

Ora Oziel, a neighbor and close friend, told JNS that her family and the Horgens shared a Shabbat meal together last Friday night, just 48 hours before Esther went on her ill-fated jog. She said that Esther, who was a life coach, marriage counselor and specialist in Jewish psychology, “was full of life.”

“She loved the beauty of nature and of human beings, both on their inside and outside,” added Oziel.
Thousands march to honor Israeli woman murdered in suspected terror attack
Thousands of people took part in a march on Friday in memory of an Israeli woman murdered in a suspected terror attack while out on a run earlier this week in the Reihan forest near her home in the West Bank settlement of Tal Menashe.

The march took place in the forest where Esther Horgen, 52, a mother of six, was killed on Sunday. Her body was found in the early hours of Monday, having apparently been violently murdered. Horgen had gone out for an afternoon run and did not return, whereupon her husband, Benjamin, notified the police.

Samaria Regional Council Chairman Yossi Dagan called on Friday for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to greenlight new housing construction in the settlement as a response to the murder.

“We call on the prime minister to announce on Sunday that construction in Tal Menashe will be doubled as a Zionist response to the killing. We will not stop marching,” Dagan was quoted by Ynet as saying at the gathering.


IDF troops map house of suspected murderer of Esther Horgen
IDF soldiers entered the Palestinian village of Tura early Friday in order to map the house of the terrorist suspected of murdering Esther Horgen, the IDF Spokesperson's Unit reported.

The process of mapping the house was done in order to examine the possibility of demolishing the house, in case the suspected killer is found guilty.

Horgen, a woman in her 50s, was found dead on Monday in the Reihan Forest, close to her home in the settlement of Tal Menashe, after she had been out jogging.

Horgen’s body was found on the side of a path in the forest and showed signs of violence, including to her head. Her family reported her missing on Sunday. She is survived by her husband, Benyamin, and six children. Her youngest child celebrated his bar mitzvah three months ago.

A suspect in the murder of Horgen, who was killed in the northern West Bank in an alleged terrorist attack, was arrested in a joint operation by the Police, the IDF, and the Border Police on Thursday.

On Thursday, at around noon, intelligence units found that the suspect was staying at his mother’s house in the village of Toura, near Jenin. The Yamam (Israel Police National Counter Terrorism Unit) then arrived at the scene and with assistance from intelligence drones, the suspect was located on a rooftop and was later apprehended. He was taken questioning by the Shin Bet.

Tuesday, September 15, 2020




With the UAE, and now Bahrain, recognizing Israel -- what would happen to this momentum if Biden were to become president?

In a recent article, Jonathan Schanzer -- of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies -- asks Would Joe Biden be willing or able to take advantage of the progress made with the Israel-UAE deal? At issue is whether Biden would be in a position to take advantage of the willingness of some Arab states to establish peaceful ties with Israel.

On the one hand, there is "the unorthodox approach of focusing on Arab states on the periphery of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (rather than on the Palestinians)" -- going against the established precedent of relying on Arab states to bring the Palestinian Arabs to the negotiating table, the Trump administration is bypassing the Palestinians and bringing the Arab states themselves to normalize relations with Israel. 

This is a new approach that Biden would be free to continue. 

(Unless, of course, the Arab states are wary of the man who, as vice-president, vigorously supported Obama's strengthening of Iran, creating the instability and fear in the region that gave the impetus to Trump's policy in the first place.)

The stakes for the Palestinian Arab leadership are high:
At minimum, they will need to give up the dream of the demise of Israel as a state in which the Jewish people enjoy sovereignty and self-determination. More practically, this means the Palestinians would have to compromise on core issues like borders, Jerusalem, and Palestinians claiming refugee status.
 And if Trump in fact should win in November, some version of his Deal of the Century is very possible.

On the other hand, if Biden were to win, his options could be limited.

First, Schanzer points out, there are the progressives supporting the Iran deal, who consider Saudi Arabia, the UAE and their allies deserving of US sanctions. Reestablishing the Iran deal would undercut the ability of a Biden administration to act as a broker with those states.

Then there are the progressive Democrats supporting BDS against Israel, and would likewise make a policy de-emphasizing Palestinian Arab demands more difficult. 

Interestingly, prior to Trump becoming president, the Obama administration also worked on engaging foreign countries and improving relations.

But they did not think in terms of alliances -- it focused on Iran, not only to slow down its nuclear program, but also for the influence Iran could have in the region.

If an Iran deal helps forestall development of a nuclear weapon, that has to be seen as a benefit. If it has produced a partner in helping to contain Sunni extremism, that will also be seen as a net good. If it forms the foundation for a new U.S. regional policy that is based on enlightened management of the balance of power between key regional actors to maintain stability and contain threats, that is to the net good...If [Obama] can make that happen through careful, strategic management of U.S. relations in the region and follow through on all the steps required to make this work, it’ll be quite an accomplishment.
Aside from betting on a global supporter of terrorism to get the job done, Obama was relying on the influence of a single, albeit influential state not shy about extending that influence, to hold things together. This was an extension of Obama's policy of engaging other countries one-on-one -- to "extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” even to governments “who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent.”

Like Myanmar, which Obama rewarded with restored diplomatic relations in 2012, following its political and economic changes and reforms, and cease-fire with rebels.

And Cuba, where Obama restored full diplomatic relations in 2014 and opened a US embassy for the first time in over 50 years, vowing to “cut loose the shackles of the past.”

The accomplishments are not insignificant, regardless of how one views Cuba and Iran. But it is a different approach from the policy of the Trump administration, which is focusing on alliances and regional peace as opposed to engaging individual countries and re-establishing relations.

And what about Biden?

As vice president, he has not been in a position to directly conduct foreign policy, though he has claimed to have influenced foreign leaders.

I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b*****. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Holding back aid in order to strongarm foreign governments appears to be a favorite tactic of Joe Biden.

In a well-known incident in1982, when Prime Minister Menachem Begin appeared before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden went beyond voicing opposition to the Israeli settlements and suggested that he would propose cutting financial aid to Israel. Unlike the Ukrainian leader, Begin was not impressed:
Don't threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.
In this case, instead of bragging, Biden has "hotly denied" the incident, but it is confirmed by both the New York Times and Time Magazine.
        
In another incident, Biden killed 2 birds with one stone -- again bullying Ukraine, this time in order to undermine Israel by ensuring a unanimous vote for UN Resolution 2334, with the US being the lone abstention.

So much for supporting allies.

Schanzer suggests that a Biden administration could both continue the Trump policy of encouraging Arab states to recognize Israel while also leveraging those states to encourage the Palestinian Arab leadership to come back to the negotiating table.

But would Abbas see that as the last opportunity for peace on favorable terms, or as an opening to again scuttle talks and maintain the status quo?

In the meantime, let's see how many more Arab states will recognize Israel before the November elections.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Friday, August 03, 2018

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: Trump's Offer to Talk to Iran Was Shrewd Move in Complicated Showdown
All negotiations have a tendency to create a dynamic in which reaching a deal – any deal – becomes more important than achieving the goals that brought the parties to the negotiating table in the first place. Western leaders, who are subject to media scrutiny and election pressures, are more susceptible to the pressure to achieve a deal than leaders of dictatorial regimes like those in Iran and North Korea.

As a consequence, the dynamic of negotiations works against the interests of the Western powers and favors the interests of the authoritarians they face at the table. In the current context of U.S.-Iranian relations, we will know that we should be concerned about this dynamic if and when the administration diminishes its public support for the anti-regime protesters in Iran.

On Wednesday, U.S. Central Command warned that Iran is about to launch a massive military exercise in the Straits of Hormuz. Suleimani and other regime leaders have threatened repeatedly in recent weeks to seal the maritime choke point through which 20 percent of world oil shipments transit if the U.S. blocks Iranian oil exports.

This Iranian move, like the missiles its Houthi proxies shot at two Saudi oil tankers in the Bab el Mandab choke point in the Red Sea least week, shows that the Iranians also know how to talk and shoot at the same time.

Obviously, it is too early to know where Trump’s offer will lead. But what is clear enough is that Trump’s offer to negotiate with Iran is no fluke. It is a shrewd, albeit high-risk move made in a complex and highly dynamic and dangerous standoff between the U.S. and its allies — and a lethal, menacing regime whose back is up against the wall.

Eli Lake: Trump’s Outreach to Rogues Follows in Obama’s Footsteps
This was a hot-button issue back in 2007 and 2008 when an upstart Democratic senator named Barack Obama proposed that if elected president, he would meet with leaders of Iran, Cuba and North Korea in his first year. His opponents pounced. Hillary Clinton said she wouldn’t want a meeting with such dictators to be “used for propaganda purposes.”

In his recent memoir, Obama’s deputy national security adviser and speechwriter, Ben Rhodes, described the reaction to his critics from inside the bubble. The campaign team was reading a news story in which Madeleine Albright, formerly Bill Clinton’s secretary of state, criticized Obama’s naive offer. Obama responded, according to Rhodes, by pounding his open palm on a table to emphasize every syllable: “It. Is. Not. A. Reward. To. Talk. To. Folks.”

Fast forward to 2018 and it’s fair to say that Trump takes the Obama view of talking to bad guys. After all, Trump met North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Un in Singapore. He met with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. If aliens threatened to vaporize Los Angeles, Trump would first tweet some threats and insults and then a few days later propose a summit on a neighboring planet.

Now the president says he is open to talks with Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, without preconditions. “If they want to meet, I’ll meet,” he said at a joint press conference with Italy’s prime minister.

Anyone who has paid close attention to Trump’s Iran policy should not be surprised. As I wrote last week, Trump has consistently said he wants to negotiate a new deal with Iran’s leaders now that he has withdrawn the U.S. from the one negotiated by Obama.
Why The United States Should Give Iranian Dissidents A Boost Via Social Media
It’s crucial to remember that even though we may share much in common, Iranian opponents of the theocratic regime may not always agree with us on foreign policy. Indeed, the intensity of the partisan divide in the United States makes it difficult to cross political aisles even here at home. Nevertheless, we can use our converging interests to mutual advantage.

While these Iranian democracy activists represent a diverse range of opinion about both the United States and its current president, they are still opponents of the theocratic regime in Tehran. Thirty-nine years after the birth of the theocratic Shi’a regime, the president reached out to the people of Iran, telling them: “The future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land. And they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history, and glory to God.”

Young democracy activists need to hear this message on their own channels. U.S. government information, analysis, and policy branches need native Farsi speakers reading these and other social media daily, giving feedback and recommendations to policymakers.

Whether or not the opposition is in the streets doing battle with the regime, it is always online. Through a massive network of existing social media networks, we can reach this crucial group of activists both inside Iran and in diaspora communities around the world.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

  • Tuesday, July 24, 2018
  • Elder of Ziyon
Lowenstein and Kerry, 2013


I showed recently how, according to a New Yorker article, President Obama was "shocked" by maps shown to him by the State Department that were essentially identical to the Oslo maps of 1995 ans interpreted them as if Israel was taking more and more land.

The State Department employee credited with what can now be seen to be a deception was Frank Lowenstein, and Times of Israel interviewed him. What he says about that map proves that he knew he was being deceptive.

Lowenstein told The Times of Israel that he’d long been aware of the reality in the West Bank, but had been unable to fully explain it to his superiors until the sixth year of Obama’s presidency when he came across a series of maps that showed how 60 percent of the land beyond the Green Line had become off-limits to Palestinian development.

“We knew this all along. I just couldn’t figure out how to explain it to people until I saw those maps,” he recalled, saying that they were essential in illustrating to then-secretary of state John Kerry and president Obama the reality of Israeli entrenchment in the West Bank.

Lowenstein acknowledged that the 60% he had highlighted was equivalent to Area C, which was placed under full Israeli control under the Oslo Accords. However, he pointed out that the goal of the agreement had been to gradually transfer parts of Area C to the Palestinian Authority.

“That’s how this narrative emerged in my head that this was Oslo reversed. Instead of transitioning power to the Palestinians they were effectively transitioning power over to the settlers,” Lowenstein said.
The goal of the agreement was to create a Palestinian entity, which Israel agreed to do in 2000 and 2001. Much of it would have been from Area C. But as far as I know there was no agreement to slowly transfer Area C to Palestinian hands without a peace agreement.

Beyond that, there are some small matters here and there that Lowenstein is pretending didn't happen.

Like the Palestinians rejecting both peace offers.As well as a 2008 peace plan and ignoring a 2014 peace framework put forth by Obama without consulting Israel.

Like an intifada that killed thousands. Like incitement directly from the Palestinian Authority.

Yet somehow Lowenstein is upset at Israel for not unilaterally giving land to a Palestinian government that consistently rejected peace and chose to encourage citizens to blow themselves up in the first decade of this century, and to stab and run over Jews in the second decade.

What Lowenstein is saying is that no matter what, Israel must be blamed, and he found a convenient way to do that by lying about history and maps to the President.

The only "peace plan" the Palestinians have publicly offered is one where they get everything east of the Green Line, where "refugees" can flood Israel and where they still would refuse to accept a Jewish state. And the Obama White House supported them - even after they spit in Obama's face by rejecting his own plan.

There is a sick, Israel hating pathology behind this.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Friday, February 05, 2021

daledamos2

 

Last month, Jonathan Tobin sounded the alarm on Biden's foreign policy in the Middle East, which is guided by the foreign policy establishment now back in charge. Tobin is looking at the return of Robert Malley, who will advise on Iran; the resumption of aid to UNRWA and to the Palestinian Authority itself; and at Biden's decision to halt, at least temporarily, the arms sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia -- the former considered a part of the Abraham Accords.

 
As Tobin sees it:
Biden’s choices show that he has learned nothing from the mistakes made during the Clinton and Obama administrations.
But what exactly are the mistakes of the Clinton and Obama administrations?
 
Enter Yoram Ettinger, Israeli researcher, who this week looked beyond the Clinton and Obama administrations, and traced the history of various US administrations in the Middle East, going back to 1948:
President Biden’s foreign policy and national security team reflects a resurgence of the State Department’s worldview. An examination of this worldview and its track record is required, in order to avoid past mistakes.
Remember how Abba Eban said the Palestinian Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity?
Notice the pattern of misjudgements that Ettinger finds in US Middle East policy:
 
 
1.  In 1948, the State Department opposed the recognition of Israel for a variety of reasons:
Israel would be helpless against the Arab armies arrayed against it
Israel would be pro-Soviet
Israel's existence would undermine US-Arab relations
Israel's existence would destabilize the Middle East
Israel's existence would threaten the US supply of oil
Israel's existence would damage US interests

2.  During the 1950s, the US courted Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser as a potential Middle East ally, going so far as to extend non-military aid to Egypt. But In return:
Nasser turned into a key ally of the then-USSR
Nasser supported anti-Western elements in Africa
o Nasser intensified anti-US sentiments in the Arab world
Nasser attempted to topple pro-US Arab regimes
 
3.  In 1978-1979, the Carter administration betrayed the pro-US Shah of Iran and instead embraced Ayatollah Khomeini and even shared intelligence with the Khomeini regime during its first few months. Carter assumed Khomeini was controllable and looking for freedom, democracy and positive ties with the US.
 
 
4.  In 1980-1990, during the Reagan and first 2 years of the George H. W. Bush administrations, the US collaborated with Saddam Hussein and supplied him with:
intelligence-sharing
supply of dual use systems
$5 billion loan guarantees
This time, the guiding principle was “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” For his part, Saddam saw this as a green light for Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait -- especially when the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, 8 days before the invasion, told the leader, in accordance with the position of the State Department that an invasion of Kuwait was an inter-Arab issue.
 
Interestingly, Ettinger does not list the overthrow of Hussein and the subsequent weakening of Iraq -- removing Iraq as a check on Iran which in turn became a major destabilizing influence and global sponsor of terrorism -- as an error by the Bush administration.
 
 
5.  From 1993-2000, during the Clinton administration, the US praised Arafat as a messenger of peace, worthy of the Nobel Prize for Peace and of annual US foreign aid. In doing so, Clinton ignored:
Arafat's goal of destroying Israel, as reflected the 1959 Fatah and 1964 PLO charters, 
Arafat's hate-education system, demonizing Jews and glorifying terrorism 
Arafat's intensified terrorism.
 
6.  In 2009, the Obama administration embraced the anti-US Muslim Brotherhood, ignoring its terroristic nature, and looking at it instead as a political, secular entity and turned a cold shoulder toward the pro-US Mubarak. This paved the way for the Muslim Brotherhood to gain power in 2012/13, which was a blow to pro-US Arab countries, which have been afflicted by Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.
 

7.  Up until the 2011 civil war in Syria, the State Department considered Bashar Assad to be a reformer and possibly a potential moderate, based in part on Assad being 
an ophthalmologist in London
married to a British woman
president of the Syrian Internet Association
-- just as his father, Hafiz Assad -- known as “the butcher from Damascus” -- was regarded as a man of his word, and a credible negotiator, justifying Israel’s giving away the strategically important Golan Heights.
 
 
8.  In 2011, the Obama State Department was a key supporter of the US-led NATO military offensive, which toppled Libya’s Qaddafi, despite the fact that Qaddafi 
dismantled Libya’s nuclear infrastructure
conducted a war on Islamic terrorism
provided the US counter-terror intelligence 
The overthrow of Qaddafi transformed Libya into a platform for civil wars and global Islamic terrorism.
 
 
9.  In 2011, the Washington, DC foreign policy and national security establishment welcomed the eruption of violence on the Arab Street in various Arab countries, and interpreted it as a march toward democracy and progress toward peaceful-coexistence -- calling it an Arab Spring.

In fact, this released intra-Arab and intra-Muslim terrorism and violent power struggles across the region.


10.  In 2015, the Obama administration ignored Iran’s core fanatical and repressive ideology and its systematic perpetration of war and terrorism. Instead, the architects of the Iran nuclear accord (JCPOA) provided Iran with $150 billion, which allowed it to bolster their terrorism and expansionism across the region. 
 
Obama and his 'experts' operated under the assumption that the Ayatollahs were open to negotiation and willing to live in peaceful-coexistence with their Arab Sunni neighbors. In doing so, the US disappointed most Iranian citizens, by renouncing a military regime-change option against the ruthless Iranian regime.
 
---
 
In his rush to reinstate the Iran deal, Biden is not merely pushing back the clock on the mistaken policy in which he participated during his time as vice president in the Obama administration.
 
screen-cap
YouTube screencap

 
Now Biden is adding his name to the list of US administrations whose foreign policy errors have inflamed the instability of a region that is more than capable of generating tensions and instability all on its own.

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Follow by Email

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 14 years and 30,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Categories

#PayForSlay Abbas liar Academic fraud administrivia al-Qaeda algeria Alice Walker American Jews AmericanZionism Amnesty analysis anti-semitism anti-Zionism antisemitism apartheid Arab antisemitism arab refugees Arafat archaeology Ari Fuld art Ashrawi ASHREI B'tselem bahrain Balfour bbc BDS BDSFail Bedouin Beitunia beoz Bernie Sanders Biden history Birthright book review Brant Rosen breaking the silence Campus antisemitism Cardozo cartoon of the day Chakindas Chanukah Christians circumcision Clark Kent coexistence Community Standards conspiracy theories COVID-19 Cyprus Daled Amos Daphne Anson David Applebaum Davis report DCI-P Divest This double standards Egypt Elder gets results ElderToons Electronic Intifada Embassy EoZ Trump symposium eoz-symposium EoZNews eoztv Erekat Erekat lung transplant EU Euro-Mid Observer European antisemitism Facebook Facebook jail Fake Civilians 2014 Fake Civilians 2019 Farrakhan Fatah featured Features fisking flotilla Forest Rain Forward free gaza freedom of press palestinian style future martyr Gary Spedding gaza Gaza Platform George Galloway George Soros German Jewry Ghassan Daghlas gideon levy gilad shalit gisha Goldstone Report Good news Grapel Guardian guest post gunness Haaretz Hadassah hamas Hamas war crimes Hananya Naftali hasbara Hasby 2014 Hasby 2016 Hasby 2018 hate speech Hebron helen thomas hezbollah history Hizballah Holocaust Holocaust denial honor killing HRW Human Rights Humanitarian crisis humor huor Hypocrisy ICRC IDF IfNotNow Ilan Pappe Ilhan Omar impossible peace incitement indigenous Indonesia international law interview intransigence iran Iraq Islamic Judeophobia Islamism Israel Loves America Israeli culture Israeli high-tech J Street jabalya James Zogby jeremy bowen Jerusalem jewish fiction Jewish Voice for Peace jihad jimmy carter Joe Biden John Kerry jokes jonathan cook Jordan Joseph Massad Juan Cole Judaism Judea-Samaria Judean Rose Judith Butler Kairos Karl Vick Keith Ellison ken roth khalid amayreh Khaybar Know How to Answer Lebanon leftists Linda Sarsour Linkdump lumish mahmoud zahar Mairav Zonszein Malaysia Marc Lamont Hill Marjorie Taylor Greene max blumenthal Mazen Adi McGraw-Hill media bias Methodist Michael Lynk Michael Ross Miftah Missionaries moderate Islam Mohammed Assaf Mondoweiss moonbats Morocco Mudar Zahran music Muslim Brotherhood Naftali Bennett Nakba Nan Greer Nation of Islam Natural gas Nazi Netanyahu News nftp NGO Nick Cannon NIF Noah Phillips norpac NSU Matrix NYT Occupation offbeat olive oil Omar Barghouti Only in Israel Opinion Opinon oxfam PA corruption PalArab lies Palestine Papers pallywood pchr PCUSA Peace Now Peter Beinart Petra MB philosophy poetry Poland poll Poster Preoccupied Prisoners propaganda Proud to be Zionist Puar Purim purimshpiel Putin Qaradawi Qassam calendar Quora Rafah Ray Hanania real liberals RealJerusalemStreets reference Reuters Richard Falk Richard Landes Richard Silverstein Right of return Rivkah Lambert Adler Robert Werdine rogel alpher roger cohen roger waters Rutgers Saeb Erekat Sarah Schulman Saudi Arabia saudi vice self-death self-death palestinians Seth Rogen settlements sex crimes SFSU shechita sheikh tamimi Shelly Yachimovich Shujaiyeh Simchat Torah Simona Sharoni SodaStream South Africa Sovereignty Speech stamps Superman Syria Tarabin Temple Mount Terrorism This is Zionism Thomas Friedman TOI Tomer Ilan Trump Trump Lame Duck Test Tunisia Turkey UAE Accord UCI UK UN UNDP unesco unhrc UNICEF United Arab Emirates Unity unrwa UNRWA hate unrwa reports UNRWA-USA unwra Varda Vic Rosenthal Washington wikileaks work accident X-washing Y. Ben-David Yemen YMikarov zahran Ziesel zionist attack zoo Zionophobia Ziophobia Zvi

Blog Archive