A Middle East Policy for President Romney
There was virtually no discussion of foreign policy at the Republican National Convention. This was entirely appropriate given the crisis and priority of domestic issues. Yet I haven’t even seen a single article discussing this issue at all, and it is going to be important.
Here is the key factor: Mitt Romney, the Romney-Ryan ticket, and Republican congressional candidates have a variety of choices on foreign policy. Some of them can be bad and because there are different and complex issues the line taken will not—and arguably should not—be consistent.
Of course, there are the general principles: make America strong and respected again; support the soldiers; help friends and make enemies sorry that they are enemies. There must be an end to apologies and the defense of legitimate U.S. interests. Popularity is okay but respect and trust are far more important. Avoid either isolationism or excessive interventionism and get over the democracy-solves-all naivete. Don’t be chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran as a supposed panacea. These are important but these principles don’t necessarily tell us how to do things. An average Arab citizen put it best in private conversation: “We don’t want an American president who acts like an Arab. We want an American president who acts like an American.” The old diplomatic virtues of credibility, national interests’ protection, preserving alliances and promises, recognizing friends and enemies, and so on need to be reinstalled.
(Read more…)
(Read more…)
Pro-Israel Language Removed From Democratic Party Platform
I can understand Obama doing this but to have the Democratic Party with all its Jews and Jewish money sign on is beyond belief. The only question remaining is how is Obama going to try to force Israel to comply? Ted Belman
Emergency Committee for Israel
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
September 4, 2012 11:27 am
September 4, 2012 11:27 am
Several pro-Israel sections of the 2008 Democratic Party platform have been removed from the 2012 platform—on Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and Hamas. The new platform represents another shift by the Obama Democrats toward the Palestinian position on key issues in the peace process.
For Jerusalem, the new platform has been brought into line with the Obama administration’s policy of not recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and supporting its division. Jerusalem is unmentioned in the 2012 document, whereas the 2008 and 2004 Democratic Party platforms declared “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel…It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.” The Obama administration’s refusal to recognize Jerusalem has been a point of significant controversy in recent months.
(Read more…)
(Read more…)
Romney’s vs. Obama’s attitudes on Israel
Romney and the GOP have not charted a bold new path on the peace process other than to say that he will demand concessions from the Palestinians. Obama would never do that. Romney has not promised to move the embassy. He has not been critical of Obama’s embrace of the MB at home and abroad. He has been very circumspect with his promises. I believe that because of Adelson we can expect more from Romney than his present words allow. Adelson is financing his campaign to the tune of $100 million and Adelson is the owner of Israel Hayom which is right wing and pro Netanyahu. Also Romney and Netanyahu go back many decades to when they both worked for Boston Consulting. So I expect more than he has promised. Ted Belman
“President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus,” Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president, said in his high-profile speech accepting his party’s nomination last week, repeating a slang phrase for sacrificing a friend for selfish reasons that he has used before, notably in May 2011 and January this year.
This criticism of Obama fits a persistent Republican critique. Several other recent presidential candidates have also used or endorsed the same “bus” formulation to describe Obama’s attitude to Israel: Herman Cain in May 2011, Rick Perry in September 2011, Newt Gingrich in January 2012, and Rick Santorum in February 2012.
(Read more…)
(Read more…)
Maybe Obama Has Israel’s Back, Or maybe it’s time to realize that Israel is on its own.
Maybe Martin Dempsey chose his words poorly.
Maybe the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff didn’t mean to imply Israel would be committing a crime when he told reporters last week that the U.S. would not be “complicit” with an Israeli attack on Iran. Maybe he hadn’t yet read the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, noting that Iran continued to enrich, continued to obstruct, continued to deceive. Maybe Gen. Dempsey wasn’t speaking for the president at all, just offering opinions above his pay grade.
Or maybe he was speaking directly for a president who, politics being what they are, can’t yet say such things himself.
(Read more…)
(Read more…)
The anatomy of a fabrication
By Ted Belman
A few days ago I published a post from Israel Matzav entitled Obama’s ‘intelligence’ agencies urge preparing for a ‘post-Israel Middle East’. This post referenced an article titled, “Preparing For A Post Israel Middle East”, by one Franklin Lamb in which he referred to the findings of a 92 page draft Report :
- The study was commissioned by the US Intelligence Community comprising 16 American intelligence agencies with an annual budget in excess of $ 70 billion. The IC includes the Departments of the Navy, Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Defense Intelligence Agency, Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, State, Treasure, Drug Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency commissioned the study.
Ted Belman
Jerusalem, Israel
Posts
