Israel’s Terror Fires: Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, Nov. 27, 2016 — The primary culprit for the wave of fires that swept through Israel in recent days was nature, not a criminal mind or the unpreparedness of first responders.
As Trump Charts New Mideast Policy, White House Contemplates Sabotage: Gregg Roman, Miami Herald, Nov. 21, 2016— After their first meeting, with cameras broadcasting their every word across the globe, President Obama turned to Donald Trump and pledged "to do everything we can to help you succeed."
Obama's Distorted Rhetoric: Manfred Gerstenfeld, Arutz Sheva, Nov. 16, 2016— For many years to come, doctoral dissertations and other studies will be written about the Obama administration.
Tackling the Middle East after the Election: Clifford Smith, American Spectator, Nov. 4, 2016— The next U.S. president will have a difficult job in the Middle East.
ISIS: A catastrophe for Sunnis: Liz Sly, Washington Post, Nov. 23, 2016
Five Rules to Get State-Building Right: Roger B. Myerson & J. Kael Weston, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2016
In Letter to Outgoing UN Chief, Arab Nations Slam Iran for Support of Mideast Terrorism, Say Islamic Republic Must Be Confronted: Barney Breen-Portnoy, Algemeiner, Nov. 16, 2016
An Economic Ultimatum for the Arab World: Marwan Muasher, Project Syndicate, Nov. 16, 2016
Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary, Nov. 27, 2016
The primary culprit for the wave of fires that swept through Israel in recent days was nature, not a criminal mind or the unpreparedness of first responders. But by the end of last week it was equally apparent that wildfires were spreading not solely due to the winds and dry conditions but as a result of politically inspired arson. Some 32,000 acres of natural brush and forests were destroyed in the Judean Hills near Jerusalem, as well as in the Haifa region. Hundreds of Israelis were injured (though thankfully none killed) and hundreds of homes were destroyed as tens of thousands were forced to evacuate as the fires spread. But as bad as the original fires that were the result of the weather were, they were made worse by what security officials say was an arson spree by Palestinians from the West Bank and some Israeli Arabs. The authorities reportedly detained at least 35 suspects in connection with the fires. Palestinian social media also seems to have played at least a small part in encouraging the fires that were celebrated by many Arabs.
As scary as the notion of terrorists using fire rather than explosives might be, it would probably be a mistake to characterize what happened last week as an organized “arson intifada.” Along with the assistance provided to Israel by friendly countries such as the United States, the Palestinian Authority also sent crews to help put out fires that could spread to territory under its control as well as assisting Israel in dealing with an arson fire at one West Bank settlement. There is no evidence of a concerted effort on the part of Hamas or Fatah to start the fires. Rather, like the so-called “stabbing intifada” that afflicted Israel over the course of the last year (and which appears to have died down), the willingness of dozens of individuals to start fires they hope will injure Jews or destroy their property is more the result of a Palestinian political culture in which hate and violence directed at Israelis is both encouraged and praised.
It is appropriate for Israeli leaders to make it clear that Jews will not be burned out of their country anymore than they can be bombed out of it. This isn’t the first instance of Palestinians using arson as a terror tactic and it probably also won’t be the last. But while no one should underestimate the determination of Israelis to stand fast in the face of terror, the lesson of the last week is that there is that the conflict between two peoples over one land is still so bitter that many some Arabs appear to be still willing to destroy it rather than let Jews live there in peace.
AS TRUMP CHARTS NEW MIDEAST POLICY,
WHITE HOUSE CONTEMPLATES SABOTAGE
Gregg Roman
Miami Herald, Nov. 21, 2016
After their first meeting, with cameras broadcasting their every word across the globe, President Obama turned to Donald Trump and pledged "to do everything we can to help you succeed." Media outlets across the spectrum fawned over his magnanimity. Guess again. Washington DC insiders widely expect the president to launch a bold effort to constrain the president-elect's options in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by supporting unilateral international recognition of Palestinian statehood, possibly in the UN Security Council.
U.S. policy has long maintained that a Palestinian state should be established in conjunction with a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). While Israel has said time and time again that it is eager to live alongside a Palestinian state, the Palestinian leadership has remained unwilling to make the necessary concessions for a final status agreement, such as accepting the existence of a Jewish state alongside their own. Indeed, PA President Mahmoud Abbas has steadfastly maintained that millions of Palestinians must have the "right of return" to Israel – a move that would effectively eviscerate a Jewish Israel.
Instead of pursuing a peaceful path to statehood, Palestinian leaders have incited violence against Israel, while trying to persuade the rest of the world to recognize Palestinian statehood in the absence of peace. Amid surging anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, European governments have come under intense pressure to recognize a Palestinian state. Sweden was the first Western European government to do so in 2014. Legislatures in the United Kingdom, Spain, and France have passed (largely non-binding) resolutions doing so.
Successive U.S. administrations have vocally opposed unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood by the United Nations and other international actors, maintaining correctly that it would irreparably damage the prospects for a viable, secure two-state solution.
In a position paper released last week, the Trump campaign emphasized that "the U.S. cannot support the creation of a new state where terrorism is financially incentivized, terrorists are celebrated by political parties and government institutions, and the corrupt diversion of foreign aid is rampant," pledged to veto any UN action that unfairly targets Israel, and affirmed that Palestinians must first "renounce violence against Israel or recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" before being granted statehood.
In seeking to overturn longstanding precedent and thwart the expressed policy positions of his successor, Obama presumably hopes that supporting (or not vetoing) a UN Security Council resolution on Palestinian statehood will create an irreversible fait accompli that will eventually spur Israel to make concessions, like a settlement freeze, which will in turn strengthen moderates on the Palestinian side.
Unilateral statehood recognition communicates to Palestinian leaders that they don't need to concede anything. It's the same thinking that led the United States to make concession after concession in the Iran nuclear deal, and it is likely to backfire in the same way. Unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state will communicate to Palestinian leaders that they do not need to concede anything and validate the use and incitement of violence, vindicating hardliners. Until the Palestinian leadership can recognize and accept a Jewish state in the land of Israel, the United States must continue working to prevent international recognition of a Palestinian state.
A Trump national security adviser warned the Obama administration last week not "to try to push through agenda items that are contrary to the president-elect's positions." President-elect Trump should follow up by publicly reaffirming that his administration will vigorously oppose unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood and will not be bound by commitments the current administration has made or will make regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The rest of us should do our part by calling on President Obama to respect the will of voters and allow his duly-elected successor to chart a new course in Mideast policy without any impediments.
Manfred Gerstenfeld
Arutz Sheva, Nov. 16, 2016
For many years to come, doctoral dissertations and other studies will be written about the Obama administration. As rhetoric is one of President Barack Obama’s greatest skills, there is also much need for analysis of statements he made during his presidency. This should, as well, include what Obama did not say, as he has systematically ignored evident facts. Remaining silent about them constituted a major distortion of reality.
How Obama spoke about the Middle East and Muslims, what he did and what he did not say or do, is not only of interest to Israelis and Jews. It is also of great relevance to many others. In an article of limited size, one can only look at a few aspects of Obama’s expressions. Even these need further in-depth investigation.
The “Hope” poster created in 2008 by street artist Shepard Fairey became iconic for Obama, even though it was never officially adopted by his campaign. One word Obama used frequently was “change.” In his victory speech after being elected in November 2008 Obama said that “change has come to America.” He also spoke of changing the world, for instance in 2008 and in 2016.
Obama has brought no hope to the Middle East. To the contrary it has changed greatly for the worse under his presidency. The region is now far more chaotic than it was when he became President. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the Middle East during the Obama presidency, mainly in Syria, but also in Iraq and other countries. The U.S has conducted airstrikes on seven countries from 2009 until today: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Syria.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, the position of Russia in the Middle East was greatly weakened. Putin’s policies have enabled Russia to become a leading player in the Syrian civil war. It now has an anti-aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea to serve its ambitions. The flawed policies of the Obama administration made this possible.
In 2011 the United States moved away from decades of support for American ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. That facilitated the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is currently considered a terrorist group in Egypt. In 2013, field marshal Abdel Fattah al-Sisi overthrew Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi after mass protests against the latter’s rule. The Egyptian Army and Sisi, now Egypt’s President, have greatly reduced the dangers of this extremist Muslim organization. Yet his government is largely ignored by the Obama administration. There are various indications of his administration’s sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood, the breeding ground of most Islamic terrorist organizations, including ISIS.
Obama’s distorted view of the Muslim world was already apparent early in his presidency. In his 2009 Cairo speech Obama apologized for Western “colonialism,” and understated the major criminality prevalent within many parts of the Muslim world.
Obama applied double standards when he consistently ignored many important facts concerning the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. He demanded that the Israeli government stop building in the "settlements". When he visited Israel and the Palestinian Autority territories in 2013 his behavior and rhetoric betrayed these double standards.
A thorough investigation is required about the American interference in the 2015 Israeli elections. In that year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would not build any new "settlements in the West Bank". Yet the Obama Administration regularly condemns Israeli building in the territories, even if minor.
In a major interview he gave to Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic all Obama could say about the Palestinian Arabs was the caricature remark: “The Palestinians are not the easiest of partners.” Not a word by Obama about the fact that the largest party Hamas is a genocidal Islamo-Nazi movement. Not a word about the glorification of murderers of Israeli civilians by the Palestinian Authority. Nor has Obama ever demanded that various Arab or Muslim countries stop murderous anti-Semitic incitement.
Obama has defended his criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu arguing that such criticism gives him credibility when defending the Jewish state in the world arena. According to both the State Department definition of anti-Semitism and the IHRA definition which needed the agreement of the U.S government to pass, Obama’s double standards condemning Israel while remaining largely silent about the many huge crimes in parts of the Muslim world qualify as anti-Semitic.
One subject which should be investigated in far more detail is to what extent Obama’s frequent criticism of Israel has contributed to the anti-Israel mutation of anti-Semitism on campuses in the United States. Another topic for investigation of Obama’s rhetoric concerns the major persecution of Christians in the Muslim world that took place during his presidency. One would have to check whether it was entirely or largely ignored. Part of his whitewashing technique was the doubtful claim that ISIS and Al Qaeda distort Islam. Obama was also silent regarding the frequent, radical, anti-Semitic hatred emerging from large parts of the Muslim world.
Obama avoids linking terrorism to Islam. He has admitted that he refrains from using the words “Islamic terror” in describing Middle East extremism. The Obama administration has referred to terror attacks by Muslims as “lone wolf attacks” and refused to use the term “radical Islam.” The terms “Islam” and “jihad,” “Islamic extremism,” “radical Islamic terrorism,” and “radical Islam” have been banned from US Security documents.
Obama does not remain largely silent about Muslim criminality because he is ignorant or uneducated in these matters. He does so intentionally. In the interview with Obama, Goldberg mentioned that Obama has not come out against the huge criminality in large parts of the Muslim world in order not to “exacerbate anti-Muslim xenophobia.” During his first trip to a mosque while in office, Obama said that Muslim-Americans were being "targeted and blamed for the acts of a few". In a 2012 speech to the UN General Assembly, Obama said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” This contrasted with his structural silence about the anti-Semitic hatred and other slander coming out of large parts of the Muslim world.
In a speech to the American people after the cruel murder of journalist Jim Foley by the ISIS movement, Obama said, “No faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” One can only hope that the Trump Administration will make it clear that much of the world’s terror is linked to Islam and that this is a factor in changing the world for the worse. In his first meeting with the press after the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, Obama had advice for him, which included maintaining “a commitment to reason and facts and analysis.” If Obama had applied that advice himself he would have spoken often and truthfully about the huge problems emanating from parts of the Muslim world.
The above are not more than fragments which require both further investigations and far more profound analysis. Another major issue, though not in the category of rhetoric, is to what extent Obama has saddled the world through the agreement with Iran with a huge future problem. Much depends however on what the Trump administration will do concerning this matter.
TACKLING THE MIDDLE EAST AFTER THE ELECTION
Clifford Smith
American Spectator, Nov. 4, 2016
The next U.S. president will have a difficult job in the Middle East. The Obama administration's failure to appreciate the long-term consequences of its actions (and inactions) have allowed forces unfriendly to the United States to make unprecedented strategic, political, and even territorial gains.
The Obama administration's recently reaffirmed strategy toward ISIS has required Iraq's security forces to spend two years gradually getting the upper hand over an enemy they outnumber well over 10 to 1. Nonetheless, ISIS is on the verge of losing Mosul. The next administration should help the Iraqi Government consolidate these gains, even if it means more boots on the ground. Additionally, it should get over our hang-up about providing heavy weapons to Kurdish Peshmerga who have proven themselves loyal U.S. allies time and again.
In Syria, the years-long conflagration and the Obama administration's failure to deter heavy Russian military intervention has left the next administration with few good options. The status quo is producing not only a cataclysmic death toll, but also a massive refugee crisis that threatens political stability in Europe …
Unfriendly forces have made major strategic, political, and territorial gains in the Middle East. A longer-term problem is what to do with the Islamist, increasingly authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, the man responsible for channeling the flow of refugees from Syria into Europe. This longstanding NATO "ally" has clearly jumped off the secular democratic train. The historic role of the military in preserving secular democracy is a thing of the past.
Erdogan's Turkey is busy establishing itself as an Islamist force, oppressing its Kurdish minority, and even threatening to expand into Iraq and other surrounding areas. The effects are aiding ISIS and further destabilizing the region. Erdogan nevertheless has the gall to actively provoke nearby Russian forces and then call on NATO for support. This kind of behavior risks drawing the West into a much larger conflict with Russia. The next administration will be forced to redefine our relationship with Turkey. It should work with our European allies to exert maximum pressure on Erdogan to change course. If he won't, we must disentangle ourselves from Turkey, including working to end its NATO membership.
Iran is arguably the gravest immediate and long-term threat to American security in the region. The Iran deal is not working to moderate the regime or end the threat posed by the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, and the price keeps getting higher. The costs now include ransom payments, allowing Iran access to ballistic missiles, and increased Iranian terror financing. Though international sanctions have been lifted and funds transferred, the U.S. can still back out of the agreement. The next president must prioritize the rollback of Iran's aggressive bid for regional hegemony.
But this will not be enough — the next president must prioritize the rollback of Iran's nuclear program, as well as its aggressive bid for regional hegemony, for which Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are paying a devastating daily toll. A robust effort to weaken Iran (like opposition to the Iran deal last year) is sure to command large, bipartisan majorities. The Iranian regime is not popular at home or in the region, and a thousand signs, small and large, show its vulnerability. The next administration should use all its leverage working with our allies and the regime's opponents, internal and external, to change course. Of course, as the existential threat of a nuclear-armed Iran draws nearer, the military option must be considered.
No individual policy decision, or series of decisions, will fix these problems. As former Secretary of State Dean Acheson said, "At the top there are no easy choices. All are between evils, the consequences of which are hard to judge." However, a forward-looking policy that prioritizes long-term interests over expediency can reassert America's leadership and help improve our lot in the Middle East, and that of those in the region who want peace and stability. The U.S. is still the "indispensable nation."
ISIS: A catastrophe for Sunnis: Liz Sly, Washington Post, Nov. 23, 2016 —he Islamic State is being crushed, its fighters are in retreat and the caliphate it sought to build in the image of a bygone glory is crumbling. The biggest losers, however, are not the militants, who will fulfill their dreams of death or slink into the desert to regroup, but the millions of ordinary Sunnis whose lives have been ravaged by their murderous rampage.
Five Rules to Get State-Building Right: Roger B. Myerson & J. Kael Weston, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2016—In the wake of long, painful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are understandably wary of the idea of state-building. But the issue won’t go away.
In Letter to Outgoing UN Chief, Arab Nations Slam Iran for Support of Mideast Terrorism, Say Islamic Republic Must Be Confronted: Barney Breen-Portnoy, Algemeiner, Nov. 16, 2016 —Iran is actively wreaking havoc across the Middle East, a group of 11 Arab nations declared in a letter sent recently to outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
An Economic Ultimatum for the Arab World: Marwan Muasher, Project Syndicate, Nov. 16, 2016—If Middle Eastern countries do not start making real progress on fundamental political and economic reforms, further regional turmoil is inevitable. With the rentier systems that governments have maintained for decades now at a breaking point, policymakers must begin the difficult, but not impossible, process of establishing new social contracts.
