The pseudo-realists in charge of western foreign policy today confuse what other countries should be doing with what they are actually doing.
If the Obama/Kerry peace deal does go through, what would the risks be?
"He who tells the truth is driven from nine villages" -- Turkish proverb.
When the Obama Administration, to quote Bush's phrase, gets "to choose what side we are on," it picks the wrong one. It argues, again to quote Bush, that Ameica "should be content with supporting...flawed leaders...in the name of stability.” But these new Islamist dictators would deliver internal stability only at the price of freedom and will dismantle regional stability altogether.
At times we seem to be living in the updated version of Ignazio Silone’s remark, “The final conflict will be between the Communists and the ex-Communists.” All too often, we cannot depend on Western-trained intellectuals in positions of power who either buy into leftist ideology or tremble in fear of being called racists or Islamophobes.
The most important foreign policy effort President Barack Obama will be making over the next year is negotiating with Iran. The terms of the U.S. offer are clear: if Iran agrees not to build nuclear weapons, it will be allowed to enrich a certain amount of uranium, supposedly for purposes of generating nuclear energy (which Iran doesn’t need) and other benefits, supposedly under strict safeguards.
If the US cannot depend on its new “allies,” despite the supposed popularity of Obama and its policies in those places, then how can they be said to be allies at all?
America can never be helping the Brotherhood because America is evil and satanic.
The street thugs, fanatics, and mentally-twisted may be pulling the trigger, but the distinguished, the powerful, and the honored are providing the ammunition.
With a 'friend' like Erdogan, Obama’s policy toward Syria, Iran, the advance of revolutionary Islamism, and the Israel-Palestinian “peace process,” is in serious trouble.
Whatever happens, there will be a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria and Obama will support it.
The Obama Administration was using a barely disguised channel to pay for a revolutionary Islamist movement seeking to take over Syria.
An uprising could take place due to some major or symbolic incident, forcing Palestinian leaders to rush to the front of the army. But least likely of all would be Abbas and the current leadership making a calculated decision to launch a war from which they would expect to benefit.
I’m amused by those who think that Hamas won the recent conflict.
It’s bad enough to be mugged repeatedly but it’s even worse to provide the weapons and money for the assailants while also praising them.
It would still be too hazardous for an Arab government to accept Israel's nationhood.
The Washington Post is suggesting that greater military success for terrorism will lead to Middle East peace.
On the surface, of course, there is apparent evidence to assume Israel will attack Iran. Yet any serious consideration of this scenario says this isn’t going to happen.
The next era in the Middle East will be dominated by the debate over whether Islamism is the way to go. Islamists will radicalize the regional scene, carry out terrorism at home and abroad, and inflict repression on their own people wherever they get power.
The new Middle East strategic battle is heating up and this is only the start. It has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with two more serious lines of battle: Arabs versus Persians and Sunni versus Shia Muslims.
The Palestinian Authority has received more aid money per person than anyone else in history and yet the results have been remarkably unimpressive. The Western taxpayers give the money, the PA leaders steal or use the money for political purposes, and the average Palestinian suffers more from this situation than from the largely extinct "Israeli occupation."
The Obama administration’s portrayal of the assassination of Osama bin Laden as some courageous decision shows more than anything how weak the President is. A normal U.S. government would have taken this choice for granted, and not felt the need to stress the president’s alleged machismo.
Demonstrators charged that police undercover agents entered the protest areas, threw stones, and then went back behind the police lines.
Satire but Very Close to Actual Experience.
I have been working hard to explain to people that Iran’s nuclear weapons are not the major threat to Israel.
Of course, Romney was correct in what he said. Indeed, he was merely stating the obvious. In the current upside-down era, telling the truth is heresy, or at least there are powerful establishment figures who try to make it seem so.
While war with Iran might eventually be inevitable and necessary, that’s not true at this moment - when Iran is far from being able to build nuclear weapons, much less deliver them on missiles. And such an operation does genuinely pose serious problems for Israel and also - even if it does not participate directly in any way - for the United States.
Should we feel good that democracy has functioned and that the people are getting what they want? Or should we feel bad that the people want a repressive dictatorship, the repression of women, the suppression of Christians, conflict with Israel, hatred of the West, and the freezing of Egyptian society into a straitjacket that can only lead to continue poverty and increasing suffering?
The Egyptian regime doesn't want a war or even a high level of conflict at this time.
The US government will provide arms, money, and diplomatic support to a regime whose ruling forces openly evince hysterical antisemitism and call for genocide against Israel.