In his Middle East speech on May 19, President Barack Obama effectively outsourced American foreign policy to the masses in the Arab world. Exposing himself as a true radical who believes in popular power, Obama praised the people of the Middle East and North Africa "who had taken their future into their own hands".
...
Obama's main lesson from the Arab spring appears to be the preference of human values over cold-blooded national interests. In the early days of his presidency, Obama based his foreign policy on promoting American interests abroad. He even argued that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a "vital national security interest" of the United States. But that was in April 2010, when Middle Eastern governments still appeared as eternal forces of nature. In May 2011, however, Obama puts "advancing our values" before "strengthening our security" and treats the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a problem of human suffering and fear, rather than as a strategic issue.
...
And how is Obama going to promote self-determination and other universal rights? Acknowledging America's inability to foresee or to influence the regional upheaval, he shrugs off active diplomacy … Ever mindful of America's declining power, the president prefers to play the referee, or the professor delivering his students' report card, rather than the world-changing activist like Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, or Richard Nixon … Given both sides' mistrust and entrenchment, Obama's new recipe for a Palestinian state--negotiating its borders based on a formula of "1967 lines, plus agreed swaps and security measures, minus Jerusalem and refugees"--is bound to fail just like its predecessors. Netanyahu and Abbas are not going to see the light just because Obama gave a speech and rush to hug each other in a mutual compromise.
...
This leaves open the other route, which Obama endorses wholeheartedly: nonviolent popular protest that leads to bottom-up change. According to the new Obama doctrine, those who seek self-determination and freedom should grab it and not wait until their leaders or Uncle Sam fulfills their hopes. "Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist," lauded Obama, further praising "the moral force of non-violence".
Last week's Nakba day marches along Israel's borders have marked the advent of non-violent mass protest in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, and probably serve as the harbinger of the coming third intifada. Obama's speech gives unprecedented American sponsorship to the marchers. If the Palestinians take his words seriously, we're going to see many, many more Nakba days in the coming months.
FP: Instead of discouraging or preventing Arab protests and violence, Obama is exploiting and encouraging it as a way to scare Israel into capitulation. This is consistent with his belief that Israel is a “wound” and that appeasement of the Arabs by withdrawing support of it will achieve the realignment of a declining America with the strong horse in the Middle East, the Islamists. He simply is too indoctrinated by leftism and Palestinianism and too ignorant of the nature and history of the conflict to realize that while he’s losing his allies, by projecting weakness he is inducing enemies to pounce even more destructively....
Obama's main lesson from the Arab spring appears to be the preference of human values over cold-blooded national interests. In the early days of his presidency, Obama based his foreign policy on promoting American interests abroad. He even argued that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a "vital national security interest" of the United States. But that was in April 2010, when Middle Eastern governments still appeared as eternal forces of nature. In May 2011, however, Obama puts "advancing our values" before "strengthening our security" and treats the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a problem of human suffering and fear, rather than as a strategic issue.
...
And how is Obama going to promote self-determination and other universal rights? Acknowledging America's inability to foresee or to influence the regional upheaval, he shrugs off active diplomacy … Ever mindful of America's declining power, the president prefers to play the referee, or the professor delivering his students' report card, rather than the world-changing activist like Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, or Richard Nixon … Given both sides' mistrust and entrenchment, Obama's new recipe for a Palestinian state--negotiating its borders based on a formula of "1967 lines, plus agreed swaps and security measures, minus Jerusalem and refugees"--is bound to fail just like its predecessors. Netanyahu and Abbas are not going to see the light just because Obama gave a speech and rush to hug each other in a mutual compromise.
...
This leaves open the other route, which Obama endorses wholeheartedly: nonviolent popular protest that leads to bottom-up change. According to the new Obama doctrine, those who seek self-determination and freedom should grab it and not wait until their leaders or Uncle Sam fulfills their hopes. "Across the region, those rights that we take for granted are being claimed with joy by those who are prying loose the grip of an iron fist," lauded Obama, further praising "the moral force of non-violence".
Last week's Nakba day marches along Israel's borders have marked the advent of non-violent mass protest in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, and probably serve as the harbinger of the coming third intifada. Obama's speech gives unprecedented American sponsorship to the marchers. If the Palestinians take his words seriously, we're going to see many, many more Nakba days in the coming months.
Bret Stephens: An Anti-Israel President<
Maybe so. Then again, it isn't often that this or any other U.S. president welcomes a foreign leader by sandbagging him with an adversarial policy speech a day before the visit. Remember when the Dalai Lama visited Mr. Obama last year? As a courtesy to Beijing, the president made sure to have the Tibetan spiritual leader exit by the door where the White House trash was piled up. And that was 11 months before Hu Jintao's state visit to the U.S.
When this president wants to make a show of his exquisite diplomatic sensitivity—burgers with Medvedev, bows to Abdullah, New Year's greetings to the mullahs—he knows how. And when he wants to show his contempt, he knows how, too.
The contempt was again on display Sunday, when Mr. Obama spoke to the Aipac policy conference in Washington. The speech was stocked with the perennial bromides about U.S.-Israeli friendship, which brought an anxious crowd to its feet a few times. As for the rest, it was a thin tissue of falsehoods, rhetorical legerdemain, telling omissions and self-contradictions. Let's count the ways.
...
What, then, would a pro-Israel president do? He would tell Palestinians that there is no right of return. He would make the reform of the Arab mindset toward Israel the centerpiece of his peace efforts. He would outline hard and specific consequences should Hamas join the government.
Such a vision could lay the groundwork for peace. What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets one.
FP: Given both the reality of and his ideology about American power, Obama has chosen the strategy of decline and cowardice: suck up to the enemies and bully, ignore or get rid of the allies. By the time he has no more allies and the enemies will pounce on his weakness it’ll be too late.When this president wants to make a show of his exquisite diplomatic sensitivity—burgers with Medvedev, bows to Abdullah, New Year's greetings to the mullahs—he knows how. And when he wants to show his contempt, he knows how, too.
The contempt was again on display Sunday, when Mr. Obama spoke to the Aipac policy conference in Washington. The speech was stocked with the perennial bromides about U.S.-Israeli friendship, which brought an anxious crowd to its feet a few times. As for the rest, it was a thin tissue of falsehoods, rhetorical legerdemain, telling omissions and self-contradictions. Let's count the ways.
...
What, then, would a pro-Israel president do? He would tell Palestinians that there is no right of return. He would make the reform of the Arab mindset toward Israel the centerpiece of his peace efforts. He would outline hard and specific consequences should Hamas join the government.
Such a vision could lay the groundwork for peace. What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets one.
Caroline Glick: Obama's diversionary tactics
And so it was a stinging rebuke when Obama declared Thursday: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." According to the Washington Post, Obama wrote these lines of his speech himself and Netanyahu was informed of them just as he was scheduled to fly to the US on Thursday evening. Obama gave the speech while Netanyahu was in the air on his way to Washington to meet Obama the next morning. It is hard to think of a more stunning insult or a greater display of contempt for the leader of a US ally and fellow democracy than Obama's actions last week. And it is obvious that Netanyahu had no choice but to react forcefully to Obama's provocation.
...
The Hamas-Fatah unity deal constitutes a complete repudiation of the assumptions informing Obama's policies towards the Palestinians and Israel. Obama perceives the conflict as a direct consequence of two things: prior US administrations' refusal to "put light" between the US and Israel, and Israel's unwillingness to surrender all of the territory it took during the course of the 1967 Six Day War. The Hamas-Fatah unity deal is indisputable proof that contrary to what Obama believes, the conflict has nothing to do with previous administrations' support for Israel or with Israel's size. It is instead entirely the consequence of the Palestinians' rejection of Israel's right to exist and their commitment to bringing about Israel's destruction.
...
Obama had two options for contending with the Palestinian unity deal. He could pay attention to it or he could create a distraction in order to ignore it. If he paid attention to it, he would have been forced to disavow his policy of blaming his predecessors in the White House and Israel for the absence of peace. By creating a distraction he would be able to change the subject in a manner that would enable him to maintain those policies. And so he picked a fight with Netanyahu. And by picking the fight, he created a distraction that has, in fact, changed the subject and enabled Obama to maintain his policies that have been wholly repudiated by the reality of the Palestinian unity deal. By inserting the citation of the 1949 armistice lines into his speech, Obama made Israel's size again the issue.
...
The Left's assault on Netanyahu is not the only way it has enabled Obama to maintain his pro-Palestinian policies in the face of the Palestinians' embrace of terror and war. In his speech to AIPAC, Obama argued that Israel needs to surrender its defensible boundaries because the Palestinians are about to demographically challenge Israel's Jewish majority.
...
When we realize what Obama is up to, we recognize as well what Netanyahu must do in response. In his address before Congress on Tuesday and in all of his appearances in the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu should have one goal: to bring the focus of debate back where it belongs - on the Palestinians. At every opportunity, Netanyahu needs to pound the message that the Palestinians' commitment to Israel's destruction is the sole reason that there is no peace.
FP: Brilliant. I must admit I am impressed that Netanyahu actually did just that. But I am wary of his ability not to fall back on his usual habit of talking tough and cave in....
The Hamas-Fatah unity deal constitutes a complete repudiation of the assumptions informing Obama's policies towards the Palestinians and Israel. Obama perceives the conflict as a direct consequence of two things: prior US administrations' refusal to "put light" between the US and Israel, and Israel's unwillingness to surrender all of the territory it took during the course of the 1967 Six Day War. The Hamas-Fatah unity deal is indisputable proof that contrary to what Obama believes, the conflict has nothing to do with previous administrations' support for Israel or with Israel's size. It is instead entirely the consequence of the Palestinians' rejection of Israel's right to exist and their commitment to bringing about Israel's destruction.
...
Obama had two options for contending with the Palestinian unity deal. He could pay attention to it or he could create a distraction in order to ignore it. If he paid attention to it, he would have been forced to disavow his policy of blaming his predecessors in the White House and Israel for the absence of peace. By creating a distraction he would be able to change the subject in a manner that would enable him to maintain those policies. And so he picked a fight with Netanyahu. And by picking the fight, he created a distraction that has, in fact, changed the subject and enabled Obama to maintain his policies that have been wholly repudiated by the reality of the Palestinian unity deal. By inserting the citation of the 1949 armistice lines into his speech, Obama made Israel's size again the issue.
...
The Left's assault on Netanyahu is not the only way it has enabled Obama to maintain his pro-Palestinian policies in the face of the Palestinians' embrace of terror and war. In his speech to AIPAC, Obama argued that Israel needs to surrender its defensible boundaries because the Palestinians are about to demographically challenge Israel's Jewish majority.
...
When we realize what Obama is up to, we recognize as well what Netanyahu must do in response. In his address before Congress on Tuesday and in all of his appearances in the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu should have one goal: to bring the focus of debate back where it belongs - on the Palestinians. At every opportunity, Netanyahu needs to pound the message that the Palestinians' commitment to Israel's destruction is the sole reason that there is no peace.
Moshe Arens: Obama will go down in history as the spoiler of Mideast peace
How did the president's good intentions lead to this impasse? A good part of the blame rests with mistaken advice that he received from "experts" on the Israeli political scene.
They no doubt told him when he came into office that most Israelis object to the settlements that lie beyond the "1967 lines" and that if he made an issue of these settlements he would have the support of most Israelis, and that this would force the Israeli prime minister to accept his demands or else lose his coalition in the Knesset.
It turned out to be poor advice. This time the many calls heard in Israel for a withdrawal to the "1967 lines," the demonstrations, the artist's boycott of performances in Ariel, the "tsunami" that the defense minister predicted for this coming September unless Israel came forth with some daring initiatives, all must have convinced him or his advisers that his call for an Israeli retreat to the "1967 lines" would be an offer that the Israeli prime minister would have to accept if he did not want his government to fall. Wrong again.
The Israeli "peace camp," advisers in Washington who believed that not only do they know what is good for Israel but that they also understand the Israeli political scene better than Netanyahu, have led Obama in the wrong direction.
FP: Obama might have had good intentions for the Palestinians, but not for Israel. I do not doubt that his advisors and leftist groups have recommended his anti-Israel policy. But that’s only because his ideology and ignorance moved him to surround himself with advisors and groups that were going to do just that e.g. Samantha Power, J-Street. Indeed, the latter is a fake group funded by Soros for the precise purpose of creating the impression that US Jews are behind Obama anti-Israel policy. I will admit I am gloating over the response he got from the Palestinians for his advances, which is exactly the predictable one: demand more. Tragically, instead of drawing the obvious conclusion, I’m afraid Obama will strive to appease them even more. It pays to play the Blackmailer’s Paradox game against the gullible and weak.
They no doubt told him when he came into office that most Israelis object to the settlements that lie beyond the "1967 lines" and that if he made an issue of these settlements he would have the support of most Israelis, and that this would force the Israeli prime minister to accept his demands or else lose his coalition in the Knesset.
It turned out to be poor advice. This time the many calls heard in Israel for a withdrawal to the "1967 lines," the demonstrations, the artist's boycott of performances in Ariel, the "tsunami" that the defense minister predicted for this coming September unless Israel came forth with some daring initiatives, all must have convinced him or his advisers that his call for an Israeli retreat to the "1967 lines" would be an offer that the Israeli prime minister would have to accept if he did not want his government to fall. Wrong again.
The Israeli "peace camp," advisers in Washington who believed that not only do they know what is good for Israel but that they also understand the Israeli political scene better than Netanyahu, have led Obama in the wrong direction.
FP: Obama might have had good intentions for the Palestinians, but not for Israel. I do not doubt that his advisors and leftist groups have recommended his anti-Israel policy. But that’s only because his ideology and ignorance moved him to surround himself with advisors and groups that were going to do just that e.g. Samantha Power, J-Street. Indeed, the latter is a fake group funded by Soros for the precise purpose of creating the impression that US Jews are behind Obama anti-Israel policy. I will admit I am gloating over the response he got from the Palestinians for his advances, which is exactly the predictable one: demand more. Tragically, instead of drawing the obvious conclusion, I’m afraid Obama will strive to appease them even more. It pays to play the Blackmailer’s Paradox game against the gullible and weak.
No comments:
Post a Comment