Ed Lasky
I could also argue that much of the change that has occurred have a disparate and negative impact on Jews.
A few example: because Jews are among the highest earners on average, the increased taxes coming are going to penalize them. Because many Jews are doctors, ObamaCare will ultimately negatively affect them. Because many Jews own small businesses (because of a history of anti-Semitism), the changes that have happened and will be happening will cause havoc, along with the tax changes. Because many Jews are heavily invested in the stock market (partly a function of the higher earnings, partly an age demographic ), the market stall and the increased taxes on capital gains and dividends will not help. The railing against Wall Street and “fat cats” touches an area that has historically been associated with outbreaks of anti-Semitism. Jews save money for their kids-be it for college or inheritance (oh…and thanks Alexi for your administration of the 527 plans for my children) and these changes will not help in that area. Jews are charitable—and prospects of making deductions less tax-wise don’t help either. Jews are the oldest demographic in America-threats to Medicare (and concerns about their investments) are not cause for optimism. A lot of money is coming out of Medicare to fund Obamacare for far younger people. Medicare Advantage? Forget about it…
I could go on….but being taken for granted by either party (or by anyone) has risks. After all, the tone changed when prominent Democratic Jews started expressing their displeasure with policies coming out of the Oval Office as midterms loom. Coincidence?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/opinion/21blow.html?ref=opinion
Oy Vey, Obama
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Is President Obama good for the Jews? For more and more Jewish-Americans, the answer is no.
In a Pew Research Center report issued on Thursday and entitled “Growing Number of Americans Say Obama Is a Muslim” (tragic in its own right), there was another bit of bad news for Obama: the number of Jews who identify as Republican or as independents who lean Republican has increased by more than half since the year he was elected. At 33 percent it now stands at the highest level since the data have been kept. In 2008, the ratio of Democratic Jews to Republican Jews was far more than three to one. Now it’s less than two to one.
This is no doubt a reaction, at least in part, to the Obama administration having taken a hard rhetorical stance with Israel, while taking “special time and care on our relationship with the Muslim world,” as Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, put it in June. If that sounds like courtship, it is.
(It should be noted that the Pew poll was taken before Obama’s bold support for the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque a few blocks north of ground zero.)
Some of the president’s most ardent critics and some of Israel’s staunchest American defenders — two groups that are by no means mutually exclusive — have seized on what they see as the administration’s unfair and unbalanced treatment of Israel and have taken their denunciations to the extremes.
In September 2009, Obama went before the United Nations and declared, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” It was a line that the president had used a few months earlier in a speech in Cairo, but this time it threw critics into a tizzy. John Bolton, an ambassador to the United Nations during George W. Bush’s administration, responded: “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making.”
In March, while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting, Israel announced it would move ahead with plans to build housing in East Jerusalem. The administration was not amused. Biden condemned the decision as undermining “the trust that we need right now” in order to have profitable negotiations.
In other words, “You announce this now? You can’t be serious!”
In April, after President Obama urged Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Representative Eric Cantor, the House minority whip and the lone Jewish Republican in the chamber, lashed out: “The administration’s troubling policy of manufacturing fights with Israel to ingratiate itself with some in the Arab world is no way to advance the cause of Mideast peace.”
And, the Gaza flotilla incident in May that left nine people dead and drew international condemnation of Israeli tactics only added to the tensions.
The White House, feeling pressure over the developing rift, sought to mend fences in May through a series of meetings and statements, but as Helene Cooper reported in The Times, “It remains unclear whether Mr. Obama’s latest outreach will reassure American Jews and the general public in Israel, where Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have plummeted.” And, it’s still foggy.
When the president met in July at the White House with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he stressed the United States’ unwavering support for Israel and his commitment to the “special bond” between the two nations.
Still that was not enough to quell the cries of those like Representative Mike Pence, the Republican Conference chairman who earlier this month told the Christian Broadcasting Network, “I believe the Obama administration is the most anti-Israel administration in the modern history of the state of Israel and our relationship with her.” The more extreme the statement the better I guess.
Fair or not, these criticisms are crystallizing into a shared belief among many: Obama is burning bridges with the Jewish community in order to build bridges to the Muslim world.
There is very little independent polling, aside from Pew’s party identification polling, to help us understand how American Jews see the president, his stance toward Israel and the political implications. So in that vacuum, pollsters with partisan leanings have been spinning their findings like dreidels.
In April, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a survey that they said showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama. He captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008.
Recently, the democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and the Israel Project, a nonprofit in Washington, conducted a poll that they said found American support of Israel was dropping like a rock.
Wherever the truth lies, it is fair to say that it doesn’t bode well for Obama. While Jews are only 2 percent of the United States population, their influence outweighs their proportion. Furthermore, in crucial battleground states like Florida, their vote is critical. Obama won Florida by 3 percentage points in 2008. Jews represented 4 percent of the overall vote in that state.
As Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, told Fox News in April, “I have been a supporter of President Obama and went to Florida for him, urged Jews all over the country to vote for him, saying that he would be just as good as John McCain on the security of Israel. I don’t think it’s true anymore.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Dems bankrupt us
Budget Analysts See 2010 Deficit at $1.3 Trillion
Thursday, 19 Aug 2010 10:27 AM Article Font Size
This year's federal deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion, Congress' official budget analysts projected Thursday in a report underscoring election year perils both parties face as they struggle to balance conflicting demands to trim budget shortfalls, spark the economy and cut taxes.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this year's budget gap would be $71 billion less than last year's red ink, thanks to a reversal of recent trends that have seen years of steadily rising government spending and falling federal revenues.
Even so, that would leave this year's deficit as the second largest ever in dollars, trailing only last year's $1.4 trillion. To put those numbers in perspective, the shortfalls for 2009 and 2010 are each three times as big as the government's annual deficit had ever been previously.
The report immediately became fodder for partisan finger-pointing over the deficit, a concern of voters in the shadow of this fall's elections, which will determine control of Congress.
Thursday, 19 Aug 2010 10:27 AM Article Font Size
This year's federal deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion, Congress' official budget analysts projected Thursday in a report underscoring election year perils both parties face as they struggle to balance conflicting demands to trim budget shortfalls, spark the economy and cut taxes.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this year's budget gap would be $71 billion less than last year's red ink, thanks to a reversal of recent trends that have seen years of steadily rising government spending and falling federal revenues.
Even so, that would leave this year's deficit as the second largest ever in dollars, trailing only last year's $1.4 trillion. To put those numbers in perspective, the shortfalls for 2009 and 2010 are each three times as big as the government's annual deficit had ever been previously.
The report immediately became fodder for partisan finger-pointing over the deficit, a concern of voters in the shadow of this fall's elections, which will determine control of Congress.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Obama wants the mosque at ground zero
Obama Sides with Ground Zero Mosque Builders vs. Americans
Jennifer Rubin - 08.13.2010 - 8:50 PM
At the Iftar (end of Ramadan-day fast) shindig at the White House, Obama sided with CAIR, J Street, the ACLU, and the 29 percent of Americans who favor the Ground Zero mosque:
are you surprised? Moslem dad, grew up in Moslem school. thinks Nasa's mainn job is buttering up Moslems,
Jennifer Rubin - 08.13.2010 - 8:50 PM
At the Iftar (end of Ramadan-day fast) shindig at the White House, Obama sided with CAIR, J Street, the ACLU, and the 29 percent of Americans who favor the Ground Zero mosque:
are you surprised? Moslem dad, grew up in Moslem school. thinks Nasa's mainn job is buttering up Moslems,
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
new pro-Israel group
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39613.html
New conservative group will oppose Obama Mideast policy
By: Ben Smith
July 12, 2010 03:54 PM EDT
Leading conservatives will launch a new pro-Israel group this week with a scathing attack on Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, the first shot in what they say will be a confrontational campaign against the Obama administration’s Mideast policy and the Democrats who support it.
The Emergency Committee for Israel’s leadership unites two major strands of support for the Jewish state: The hawkish, neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of whom are Jewish, and conservative Evangelical Christians who have become increasingly outspoken in their support for Israel. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, the former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values, as well as Rachel Abrams, a conservative writer and activist.
“We’re the pro-Israel wing of the pro-Israel community,” said Kristol.
While President Barack Obama and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to put the best public face on their differences after a White House meeting last week, the two leaders have had a contentious relationship. Some American backers of Israel, as well as many Israelis, remain deeply suspicious of Obama’s efforts to press Israel toward specific policy shifts and to improve American relations with the Muslim world.
The new committee declined to disclose its funding — as a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, it isn’t required to — but said it had raised enough to air its first ad, starting this week, on Fox and CNN and during a Philadelphia Phillies game. The ad attacks Sestak for signing a letter criticizing Israel’s blockade of Gaza while not signing a defense of Israel circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and for appearing at a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations, which it describes as an “anti-Israel organization the FBI called a ‘front group for Hamas.’”
CAIR denied the 2008 allegation, and no charges were ever brought against it.
“Does Congressman Joe Sestak understand Israel is America’s ally?” asks the ad’s narrator.
A spokesman for Sestak, who defeated Sen. Arlen Specter for the Democratic Senate nomination, rejected the ad’s characterization.
“Joe is a strong supporter of the State of Israel,” said April Mellody, referring to the congressman’s service as a naval officer in the first Gulf War. “It’s political silly season, so it’s not surprising these conservatives are trying to distort Joe’s record.”
The Emergency Committee plans to advertise in other congressional races as well, according to Noah Pollak, its executive director.
“We want to be hard-hitting; we want to get into the debate and shake things up and make some points in a firm way,” he said.
The group will target races for the House and the Senate, but there’s little doubt the larger target is the Obama administration, which Bauer told POLITICO is “the most anti-Israel administration in the history of the United States.”
Along with earlier pressure on Israel to restrain building in Jerusalem, critics point to suggestions that the U.S. won’t seek to block an investigation led by the U.N. secretary-general into its raid on a flotilla bound for Gaza and new pressure on Israel to disclose its nuclear program.
Much of the traditional relationship between the U.S. and Israel remains unchanged, notably strong military-to-military ties and arms sales. Israel has also been pleased by increasing American pressure on Iran.
A White House spokesman, Ben Rhodes, declined to comment on the new group but provided a string of recent comments from Netanyahu on the strength of the countries’ relationship.
“I trust Barack Obama, the president of the United States, to carry out with me the policies that have joined Israel and the United States in what Barack Obama has called the unbreakable bond,” Netanyahu told CBS’s Katie Couric last week. “We have common goals, common interests, and we now have a job to do to get on with our common goal of achieving peace with security. I trust we’ll be able to do that together.”
The Emergency Committee will fit into a broadening spectrum of American pro-Israel groups, many of which have followed AIPAC’s lead in seeking to avoid open rifts with the White House and the political parties. Kristol said this group was inspired in part by the new liberal group J Street, whose ability to amplify criticism of the Israeli government showed, he said, the power of a small new group — if on the other side of the debate.
“There are some who say they’re pro-Israel but aren’t really,” he said, referring to J Street. “Then there’s AIPAC, which is a wonderful organization, but one that’s very committed to working with the administration, so they pull some punches publicly.”
One official at an American Jewish organization welcomed the group to the degree that it would make criticism of Democrats “mainstream,” but also expressed concern that a group with such Republican origins would contribute to a deepening partisan cast to the debate over Israel, with Republicans lining up behind the Israeli government while some Democrats align themselves with Netanyahu’s American critics.
Bauer dismissed that notion.
“I encourage our Democratic friends to have a competition with us on who can be more pro-Israel, because I think it’s in the interests of the United States and not a political party,” he said. “I’m really hoping that people like Sen. [Chuck] Schumer and others will aggressively speak out for Israel at a time like this.”
And the group’s emergence has already provoked rancor on the left. After a liberal foreign policy blogger noticed that the group had quietly registered a website, the national security editor for the blog of the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress, Matt Duss, tweeted sarcastically, “Because the world really needs another astroturf Israeli propaganda outfit.” A spokeswoman for CAP said he spoke for himself and not the group.
New conservative group will oppose Obama Mideast policy
By: Ben Smith
July 12, 2010 03:54 PM EDT
Leading conservatives will launch a new pro-Israel group this week with a scathing attack on Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, the first shot in what they say will be a confrontational campaign against the Obama administration’s Mideast policy and the Democrats who support it.
The Emergency Committee for Israel’s leadership unites two major strands of support for the Jewish state: The hawkish, neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of whom are Jewish, and conservative Evangelical Christians who have become increasingly outspoken in their support for Israel. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, the former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values, as well as Rachel Abrams, a conservative writer and activist.
“We’re the pro-Israel wing of the pro-Israel community,” said Kristol.
While President Barack Obama and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to put the best public face on their differences after a White House meeting last week, the two leaders have had a contentious relationship. Some American backers of Israel, as well as many Israelis, remain deeply suspicious of Obama’s efforts to press Israel toward specific policy shifts and to improve American relations with the Muslim world.
The new committee declined to disclose its funding — as a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, it isn’t required to — but said it had raised enough to air its first ad, starting this week, on Fox and CNN and during a Philadelphia Phillies game. The ad attacks Sestak for signing a letter criticizing Israel’s blockade of Gaza while not signing a defense of Israel circulated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and for appearing at a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations, which it describes as an “anti-Israel organization the FBI called a ‘front group for Hamas.’”
CAIR denied the 2008 allegation, and no charges were ever brought against it.
“Does Congressman Joe Sestak understand Israel is America’s ally?” asks the ad’s narrator.
A spokesman for Sestak, who defeated Sen. Arlen Specter for the Democratic Senate nomination, rejected the ad’s characterization.
“Joe is a strong supporter of the State of Israel,” said April Mellody, referring to the congressman’s service as a naval officer in the first Gulf War. “It’s political silly season, so it’s not surprising these conservatives are trying to distort Joe’s record.”
The Emergency Committee plans to advertise in other congressional races as well, according to Noah Pollak, its executive director.
“We want to be hard-hitting; we want to get into the debate and shake things up and make some points in a firm way,” he said.
The group will target races for the House and the Senate, but there’s little doubt the larger target is the Obama administration, which Bauer told POLITICO is “the most anti-Israel administration in the history of the United States.”
Along with earlier pressure on Israel to restrain building in Jerusalem, critics point to suggestions that the U.S. won’t seek to block an investigation led by the U.N. secretary-general into its raid on a flotilla bound for Gaza and new pressure on Israel to disclose its nuclear program.
Much of the traditional relationship between the U.S. and Israel remains unchanged, notably strong military-to-military ties and arms sales. Israel has also been pleased by increasing American pressure on Iran.
A White House spokesman, Ben Rhodes, declined to comment on the new group but provided a string of recent comments from Netanyahu on the strength of the countries’ relationship.
“I trust Barack Obama, the president of the United States, to carry out with me the policies that have joined Israel and the United States in what Barack Obama has called the unbreakable bond,” Netanyahu told CBS’s Katie Couric last week. “We have common goals, common interests, and we now have a job to do to get on with our common goal of achieving peace with security. I trust we’ll be able to do that together.”
The Emergency Committee will fit into a broadening spectrum of American pro-Israel groups, many of which have followed AIPAC’s lead in seeking to avoid open rifts with the White House and the political parties. Kristol said this group was inspired in part by the new liberal group J Street, whose ability to amplify criticism of the Israeli government showed, he said, the power of a small new group — if on the other side of the debate.
“There are some who say they’re pro-Israel but aren’t really,” he said, referring to J Street. “Then there’s AIPAC, which is a wonderful organization, but one that’s very committed to working with the administration, so they pull some punches publicly.”
One official at an American Jewish organization welcomed the group to the degree that it would make criticism of Democrats “mainstream,” but also expressed concern that a group with such Republican origins would contribute to a deepening partisan cast to the debate over Israel, with Republicans lining up behind the Israeli government while some Democrats align themselves with Netanyahu’s American critics.
Bauer dismissed that notion.
“I encourage our Democratic friends to have a competition with us on who can be more pro-Israel, because I think it’s in the interests of the United States and not a political party,” he said. “I’m really hoping that people like Sen. [Chuck] Schumer and others will aggressively speak out for Israel at a time like this.”
And the group’s emergence has already provoked rancor on the left. After a liberal foreign policy blogger noticed that the group had quietly registered a website, the national security editor for the blog of the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress, Matt Duss, tweeted sarcastically, “Because the world really needs another astroturf Israeli propaganda outfit.” A spokeswoman for CAP said he spoke for himself and not the group.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
What has Obama wrought?
President Obama stated that the State of Israel came into being as a result of the Holocaust. Hence the Holocaust deniers’ efforts to delegitimize a Jewish Homeland and Israel as a European anti-Arab plot. Likewise in his attempt to reach out to Arab nations and the Muslim world, President Obama visited a number of Israeli’s neighbors but pointedly did not visit Israel . And again in his profuse treatment of President Karzai in contrast to his treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama led Israel’s detractors and enemies to believe that there was a cooling in the U.S.-Israel alliance, a distancing of the United States from Israel, a desire to be “more evenhanded” in regard to Settlements, Jerusalem etc.
What are the unintended (or intended) consequences of President Obama’s behavior toward Israel ? I’m sure you can list some of them. Here is a partial list.
* The Palestinians withdrew from direct contact with the Israelis in favor of “Proximity Talks”
* The Palestinians hardened their stance on Settlements, Jerusalem and refugees.
* Jordan and Egypt , both Israel ’s partners in a “Cold Peace”, have chosen to blame Israel for all the area ills
* Turkey has turned away from United States ’ efforts to weaken Iran ’s nuclear program and is now supporting Iran ’s stalling the U.N. and United States
* Emboldened Israel-bashers Everywhere: in the Muslim World, Europe and even the United States to embarrass and attack Israel
* Furthered attempts to delegitimize Israel and foment violence on her borders
* Weakened Israel ’s claims to its own capital
* Fomented a widening breach within American Jewry
What are the unintended (or intended) consequences of President Obama’s behavior toward Israel ? I’m sure you can list some of them. Here is a partial list.
* The Palestinians withdrew from direct contact with the Israelis in favor of “Proximity Talks”
* The Palestinians hardened their stance on Settlements, Jerusalem and refugees.
* Jordan and Egypt , both Israel ’s partners in a “Cold Peace”, have chosen to blame Israel for all the area ills
* Turkey has turned away from United States ’ efforts to weaken Iran ’s nuclear program and is now supporting Iran ’s stalling the U.N. and United States
* Emboldened Israel-bashers Everywhere: in the Muslim World, Europe and even the United States to embarrass and attack Israel
* Furthered attempts to delegitimize Israel and foment violence on her borders
* Weakened Israel ’s claims to its own capital
* Fomented a widening breach within American Jewry
Friday, July 2, 2010
what recovery
July 2-The unemployment rate dropped to the lowest level since July 2009. But it fell because 652,000 people gave up on their job searches and left the labor force. People who are no longer looking for work aren't counted as unemployed.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Obama's 10 international incorrect beliefs
Obama is an ideologue, determined to change the US and the world, irrespective of his declining fortunes internally and externally. Obama’s reaction to Netanyahu’s about-face on the “two-state solution” and the de-facto freeze of construction in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, demonstrates that concessions do not improve Obama’s attitude toward Israel; they intensify pressure. Netanyahu’s concessions have not diverted Obama from the following “10 Commandments” of his worldview:
1. End of American Exceptionalism. Obama does not believe in America’s moral, economic or military exceptionalism. He perceives the US as a power in retreat, which sometimes abused its super-power role. His appointed legal advisor at the Department of State, Harold Koh, contends that the US Constitution should be interpreted, also, on the basis of foreign legal precedents and that even the Shariah (Muslim) law could find a home in the US. Koh stated that some US actions classify it as a member of the “Axis of Disobedience.”
2. Not Confrontation but Engagement. Obama is convinced that the globe is not an arena of confrontation, but a platform of engagement with enemies/rivals, including Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Hence, strategic partners such as Israel are less relevant. Moreover, he has cut the budget for the development of new military systems and of missile defense, canceled the deployment of missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic and initiated nuclear arms reduction agreements, which erode America’s posture of deterrence.
3. The UN - the Playmaker of International Relations. Obama is the most UN-like president since Woodrow Wilson, considering the UN as the chief global policy-maker. Accordingly, he appointed Susan Rice – his Guru on international relations who considers Jimmy Carter and Jim Baker her role models – to the UN ambassadorship with the rank of a cabinet member. He expressed preference for an international investigation of the Gaza flotilla, supported the anti-Israel resolution by the UN nuclear non-proliferation conference, joined the anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council and awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who led the anti-Israel and anti-US UN Durban Conference.
4. Not Unilateral but Multilateral. Obama wants to minimize unilateral and maximize multilateral US policies. This subordinates US considerations to a multinational common denominator, which is dominated by an anti-US majority. His advisor on multinational affairs is his personal friend, Samantha Power, a leading opponent of Israel and a proponent of dialogue with Teheran.
5. Europe is a Role Model. Obama aspires to adopt the European state of mind, which is critical of Israel, while appeasing terror regimes. However, global sanity requires a “US Marshall” and not a “European Cop.”
6. Islam is a Partner, not a Rival/Enemy. Obama has instructed his advisors to refrain from using the terms “Islamic Terrorism” and “Jihadist Terrorism.” He has consistently pandered to Islamic audiences, claiming that the US and Islam share a solid foundation of values. His top White House counselor and personal friend, Valerie Jarrett (“Obama’s second brain”) transmits such messages to US Muslim organizations, which support Hamas. The Quadrennial Reviews of the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security do not use the terms “Islam,” Islamist” or “Islamic.”
7. No Global or Muslim Terrorism. According to Obama, Counter-Terrorism Advisor John Brennan, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, there is no “Global Terrorism,” “Islamic Terrorism” or “Terrorists.” Instead, there are “Extremists,” “Isolated Cases” and “Man-Caused Disasters.” They consider terrorism, primarily, a law enforcement rather than military challenge. Consequently, they accord terrorists civil rights. John Brennan claims that “Violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces.” One cannot expect operational clarity when there is no moral clarity!
8. The Department of State School of Thought. While Secretary Clinton has minimal impact on the formulation of foreign policy, the cosmopolitan Dovish school of thought of the Department of State bureaucracy has been embraced by Obama. The Department of State did not want the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948 and has been a key critic of Israel since then.
9. The Centrality of the Palestinian Issue. Obama avers that the less-than-100 year old Palestinian issue is the root cause of the 1,400 year old Middle East turbulence, the core cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has adopted the Arab contention that the Holocaust – and not 4,000 year history – constitutes the moral foundation of the Jewish State. It implies that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis and were – supposedly - given land at the expense of the Palestinians…
10. Yes, We Can! Obama is confident that each problem has a solution, which he is able to obtain. He assumes that pressure must be applied in order to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, democracies (e.g. Israel) are very susceptible to pressure, while dictatorships (e.g. the PA and the Arab regimes) are less susceptible.
President Obama’s adherence to his “10 Commandments” demonstrates the unbridgeable gap between him and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Will Netanyahu learn from past mistakes, leverage the sweeping support of Israel by the American people and on Capitol Hill and refute Obama’s assessment that Netanyahu is easily persuaded to transform red lines into pink lines?
No better distillation of Obama’s flawed Middle East policy than this from Elliott Abrams: “The Obama Administration appears to have three basic premises about the Middle East. The first is that the key issue in the entire Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The second is that it is a territorial conflict that can be resolved in essence by Israeli concessions. The third is that the central function of the United States is to serve as the PLO’s lawyer to broker those concessions so that an agreement can be signed.”
1. End of American Exceptionalism. Obama does not believe in America’s moral, economic or military exceptionalism. He perceives the US as a power in retreat, which sometimes abused its super-power role. His appointed legal advisor at the Department of State, Harold Koh, contends that the US Constitution should be interpreted, also, on the basis of foreign legal precedents and that even the Shariah (Muslim) law could find a home in the US. Koh stated that some US actions classify it as a member of the “Axis of Disobedience.”
2. Not Confrontation but Engagement. Obama is convinced that the globe is not an arena of confrontation, but a platform of engagement with enemies/rivals, including Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Hence, strategic partners such as Israel are less relevant. Moreover, he has cut the budget for the development of new military systems and of missile defense, canceled the deployment of missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic and initiated nuclear arms reduction agreements, which erode America’s posture of deterrence.
3. The UN - the Playmaker of International Relations. Obama is the most UN-like president since Woodrow Wilson, considering the UN as the chief global policy-maker. Accordingly, he appointed Susan Rice – his Guru on international relations who considers Jimmy Carter and Jim Baker her role models – to the UN ambassadorship with the rank of a cabinet member. He expressed preference for an international investigation of the Gaza flotilla, supported the anti-Israel resolution by the UN nuclear non-proliferation conference, joined the anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council and awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who led the anti-Israel and anti-US UN Durban Conference.
4. Not Unilateral but Multilateral. Obama wants to minimize unilateral and maximize multilateral US policies. This subordinates US considerations to a multinational common denominator, which is dominated by an anti-US majority. His advisor on multinational affairs is his personal friend, Samantha Power, a leading opponent of Israel and a proponent of dialogue with Teheran.
5. Europe is a Role Model. Obama aspires to adopt the European state of mind, which is critical of Israel, while appeasing terror regimes. However, global sanity requires a “US Marshall” and not a “European Cop.”
6. Islam is a Partner, not a Rival/Enemy. Obama has instructed his advisors to refrain from using the terms “Islamic Terrorism” and “Jihadist Terrorism.” He has consistently pandered to Islamic audiences, claiming that the US and Islam share a solid foundation of values. His top White House counselor and personal friend, Valerie Jarrett (“Obama’s second brain”) transmits such messages to US Muslim organizations, which support Hamas. The Quadrennial Reviews of the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security do not use the terms “Islam,” Islamist” or “Islamic.”
7. No Global or Muslim Terrorism. According to Obama, Counter-Terrorism Advisor John Brennan, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, there is no “Global Terrorism,” “Islamic Terrorism” or “Terrorists.” Instead, there are “Extremists,” “Isolated Cases” and “Man-Caused Disasters.” They consider terrorism, primarily, a law enforcement rather than military challenge. Consequently, they accord terrorists civil rights. John Brennan claims that “Violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces.” One cannot expect operational clarity when there is no moral clarity!
8. The Department of State School of Thought. While Secretary Clinton has minimal impact on the formulation of foreign policy, the cosmopolitan Dovish school of thought of the Department of State bureaucracy has been embraced by Obama. The Department of State did not want the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948 and has been a key critic of Israel since then.
9. The Centrality of the Palestinian Issue. Obama avers that the less-than-100 year old Palestinian issue is the root cause of the 1,400 year old Middle East turbulence, the core cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has adopted the Arab contention that the Holocaust – and not 4,000 year history – constitutes the moral foundation of the Jewish State. It implies that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis and were – supposedly - given land at the expense of the Palestinians…
10. Yes, We Can! Obama is confident that each problem has a solution, which he is able to obtain. He assumes that pressure must be applied in order to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, democracies (e.g. Israel) are very susceptible to pressure, while dictatorships (e.g. the PA and the Arab regimes) are less susceptible.
President Obama’s adherence to his “10 Commandments” demonstrates the unbridgeable gap between him and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Will Netanyahu learn from past mistakes, leverage the sweeping support of Israel by the American people and on Capitol Hill and refute Obama’s assessment that Netanyahu is easily persuaded to transform red lines into pink lines?
No better distillation of Obama’s flawed Middle East policy than this from Elliott Abrams: “The Obama Administration appears to have three basic premises about the Middle East. The first is that the key issue in the entire Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The second is that it is a territorial conflict that can be resolved in essence by Israeli concessions. The third is that the central function of the United States is to serve as the PLO’s lawyer to broker those concessions so that an agreement can be signed.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
