Dana Milbank, "Biden probably won’t beat Clinton. He should run anyway.": Care to See Gore, Kerry or de Blasio in the Oval Office?

Tweet

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Biden probably won’t beat Clinton. He should run anyway.," Dana Milbank takes the position that if Joe Biden runs for president, he "probably won’t beat Hillary Clinton," because "[h]e’s been a lackluster presidential candidate in the past, and there’s no clear path for him to win the Democratic nomination this time." However, Milbank believes that if Biden does run, he "would shake up the race and thereby lower the barriers for other, potentially better-positioned, candidates to join the fray." Milbank goes on to say:

"Previous nominees Al Gore or John Kerry could jump in, validating Mo Udall’s theory that presidential ambition can only be cured by embalming fluid. Mike Bloomberg could rejoin the party and put his billions to work in a shortened primary season. Populists such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) or, failing that, Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) or Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York could reconsider."

Gore, Kerry or de Blasio? Excuse me, but where's my vomit bucket?

Kobani Will Soon Fall to ISIS: Where Is Obama's Coalition?

The Syrian city of Kobani, also known as Ayn al-Arab, will soon fall to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Kobani, which is located on Syria's northern border with Turkey, is being defended by Kurdish militiamen. The Kurds are outgunned by ISIS, which is using tanks to storm the city and whose forces have night vision equipment. As reported in a CNN article entitled "ISIS enters Kobani, city's defenders see 'last chance to leave,' sources say" by Ralph Ellis:

"ISIS moved closer to seizing Kobani on Sunday as militants entered the southeastern edge of the Syrian city and street-to-street fighting began, a fighter and a media activist inside the city told CNN.

The city's defenders were looking for ways to escape the Kurdish stronghold strategically located near the Turkish border, the fighter said.

. . . .

ISIS is making inroads despite airstrikes by U.S. and allied forces, including Sunday's strikes on the eastern outskirts of the city."

U.S. airstrikes on the outskirts of Kobani? If airstrikes on ISIS forces were coordinated with Kobani's Kurdish defenders, ISIS would be routed, but this is not happening, and the reason is simple.

Turkey, which has yet to join the U.S. coalition, is concerned by the establishment of a future homeland for the Middle East's 30 million Kurds living in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq. According to the CIA Factbook, some 18 percent of Turkey's population consists of Kurds, and Turkey does not want assistance to be given to Kurdish forces battling ISIS. As reported in a Newsweek article entitled "Has Turkey Joined the Anti-ISIS Coalition to Counter the Kurds?" by Benny Avni:

"While President Barack Obama announced his intention to 'degrade and ultimately destroy' ISIS, the Turkish authorities continued to allow Islamists from the rest of the world to freely cross the Turkish border to join forces with ISIS in Syria and Iraq. And the Turkish authorities seemed happy to turn a blind eye as oil from areas captured by ISIS was smuggled through Turkey to be sold for hard cash to fund their reign of terror.

. . . .

When ISIS recently bombarded the Kurdish city of Kobani, just across the Turkish border in Syria, the Turkish army appeared in no hurry to intervene. Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Turkey would do 'whatever we can' to help Kobani, but Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz quickly quashed Kurdish hopes that the army would cross the Syrian border anytime soon, telling reporters after the vote in parliament that it would be wrong to expect 'imminent' military action by Turkish forces."

Yesterday, US Vice President Biden was forced to apologize to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan after declaring last week at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University:

"President Erdogan told me, he's an old friend, said, 'You were right. We let too many people [foreigners joining ISIS] through.'"

Claiming that he never said any such thing, Erdogan demanded an immediate apology from Biden, or otherwise he will be "history for me."

Poor Joe! When will he ever learn to stop telling the truth?

Maureen Dowd, "A Modest Proposal": Biden in the Nude or Obama's Putts?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Modest Proposal" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/opinion/maureen-dowd-a-modest-impeachment-proposal.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), Maureen Dowd addresses the nonsensical talk of an impeachment of Barack Obama. As Maureen is well aware, it's just not going to happen, and for the next two and a half years, the first invertebrate to ever occupy the Oval Office will continue splitting his time between the White House and the golf course.

However, if Obama were to be removed from office, Dowd reminds us that Biden, who likes to swim in the nude, would become president:

"Unlike Obama, Biden enjoys schmoozing, jawboning, logrolling, arm-twisting and deal-making with lawmakers ’til the cows come home.

And, as we learned in the new Ronald Kessler book on the Secret Service, Biden likes to swim in the nude. So he’d certainly be a president who believes in transparency."

Might there be more to Biden than currently meets the eye?

Why do I prefer not to know?

Biden in the nude or Obama's putts?

Quite the dilemma.

David Brooks, "The Leadership Emotions": Obama, the Anti-Leader, Who Leads From Behind

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Leadership Emotions" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/opinion/brooks-the-leadership-emotions.html?ref=davidbrooks&_r=0), David Brooks analyzes the battle between "amateur decision making," based upon "experience, intuition, affection, moral sentiments, imagination and genuineness," and "professional tactics and strategy," deriving from "public opinion analysis, message control, media management and self-conscious positioning." Examining how Obama only came around to backing gay marriage after Biden inadvertently took the lead, Brooks concludes:

"In every White House, and in many private offices, there seems to be a tug of war between those who want to express this messy amateur humanism and those calculators who emphasize message discipline, preventing leaks and maximum control. In most of the offices, there’s a fear of natural messiness, a fear of uncertainty, a distrust of that which is not scientific. The calculators are given too much control.

The leadership emotions, which should propel things, get amputated. The shrewd tacticians end up timidly and defensively running the expedition."

In every White House this "tug of war" exists? This is probably true, but there have been few, if any, administrations whose decision-making has been more attuned to catering to majority sentiments than that of Barack Obama. This, in turn, has given rise to a peculiarity: Notwithstanding the fact that Obama's foreign policy has provided a majority of Americans with exactly what they seemed to want, the president's foreign policy is also held in contempt by a majority of Americans. As observed by Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "President Obama’s foreign policy paradox" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-paradox/2014/03/26/c5284c2e-b4f8-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html):

"Whether one likes President Obama’s conduct of foreign policy or not, the common assumption is that the administration is at least giving the American people the foreign policy they want. The majority of Americans have opposed any meaningful U.S. role in Syria, have wanted to lessen U.S. involvement in the Middle East generally, are eager to see the 'tide of war' recede and would like to focus on 'nation-building at home.' Until now, the president generally has catered to and encouraged this public mood, so one presumes that he has succeeded, if nothing else, in gaining the public’s approval.

Yet, surprisingly, he hasn’t. The president’s approval ratings on foreign policy are dismal. According to the most recent CBS News poll, only 36 percent of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing on foreign policy, while 49 percent disapprove.

. . . .

Presidents are not always rewarded for doing what the public says it wants. Sometimes they are rewarded for doing just the opposite. Bill Clinton enjoyed higher approval ratings after intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo, even though majorities of Americans had opposed both interventions before he launched them."

Bill Clinton taking the lead in Bosnia and Kosovo? How about Franklin Roosevelt assisting the UK against the Nazis even prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, notwithstanding strong American isolationist sentiments?

Yesterday, Fred Hiatt, Editorial Page Editor of The Washington Post, took the position that Obama's dependence upon public polling has also determined his domestic policy. Hiatt observed how the president "cold-shouldered the bipartisan [Simpson-Bowles commission] he had appointed to right the nation’s finances for the long term" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-obama-needs-to-lead-not-follow-polls/2014/04/20/72fdb36c-c73b-11e3-9f37-7ce307c56815_story.html).

But back to the Brooks op-ed: Is David correct in labeling presidential decision-making based upon "experience, intuition, affection, moral sentiments, imagination and genuineness" as "amateur"? Doesn't leadership entail the occasional willingness to buck majority sentiment and steer the public onto the moral high-road?

However, with only two and a half years left to his presidency, don't be expecting a teleprompter-reading president, who promised "Change," to change course. Obama is destined to be remembered as the "anti-leader" who led from behind.

Moreover, unless he is soon able to change course, he will leave the Oval Office with a stagnant economy, an unwieldy national debt, and a foreign policy most kindly described as wishy-washy.

It remains to be seen how Hillary will seek to distance herself from this "legacy."

Gaza Blockade: Common Sense from Joe Biden

As might be expected, the Obama administration responded in knee-jerk fashion to the events involving the Gaza flotilla:

“'There is no question that we need a new approach to Gaza,' said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policy shift is still in the early stages. He was reflecting a broadly held view in the upper reaches of the administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/middleeast/03policy.html?hp

Joe Biden, as is his wont, took a different view of the matter:

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Biden pointed out that Israel had given pro-Palestinian activists the option of unloading their cargo at the Ashdod port, and offered to bring it to the Gaza Strip on their behalf.

"They've said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza,'", he said. "So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping… 3,000 rockets on my people.'"

"Look, you can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not -- but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know -- they're at war with Hamas -- has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in."

During the interview, Biden also blamed Hamas for the crisis that has wracked the coastal territory and for the ongoing state of conflict with Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/biden-israel-right-to-stop-gaza-flotilla-from-breaking-blockade-1.293833

What a breath of fresh air after listening to the inane responses of European ministers, who couldn't care less what armaments are brought by Hamas from Iran into the Gaza Strip.

The Obama Adminstration: Blaming Israel for the U.S. Fiasco in Afghanistan

How many times have we been told by both the extreme left and the extreme right that the United States waged both Gulf Wars against Iraq on Israel's behalf? Those who disseminate this perverse view would have us forget Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and Iraqi threats against Saudi Arabia, which, had they gone unchallenged, would have brought American industry to a standstill.

In 2010 this canard has been "enhanced": Israel's refusal to make peace with the Palestinians is jeopardizing American troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Let's leave that thought for a moment and examine another eye-opening, up close account from Afghanistan, written by Dexter Filkins and published on March 30 by The New York Times, entitled "Despite Doubt, Karzai Brother Retains Power":

"Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful man in southern Afghanistan, may maintain links with drug dealers and insurgents, as some American officials and Afghans believe. And he might have played a central role in last summer’s fraudulent presidential election, as Western diplomats charged.

But Mr. Karzai is also the brother of the Afghan president, Hamid. And after debating Ahmed Wali’s future for months — and with a huge military operation in the area looming — Afghan and American officials have decided that the president’s brother will be allowed to stay in place.

. . . .

Any decision about Ahmed Wali Karzai is complicated by his relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency, which maintains a large presence in Kandahar. Current and former American officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, say the agency has paid Ahmed Wali Karzai regularly for many years for performing a variety of services.

. . . .

But Western and Afghan officials say the president’s brother is engaged in many activities that buoy the insurgency and undermine the Afghan state. These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, strongly suggests that he enriches himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium.

. . . .

The official said that Ahmed Wali Karzai also laundered ill-gotten money for a host of figures in southern Afghanistan. “For a lot of people, including drug runners,” the Western official said.

Perhaps the most vivid example of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s reach came last August, when his brother sought re-election. According to Western diplomats in Kabul, he cut deals with insurgent groups to refrain from attacking polling stations, and then helped orchestrate a large-scale campaign of forging ballots on his brother’s behalf."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/world/asia/31karzai.html?hp

In a nutshell, Karzai's brother, who is allegedly involved in the narcotics trade, money laundering, election fraud and deals with the Taliban, is also allegedly in bed with the CIA. Excuse me, but why is the United States involved with this man? What is America possibly attempting to achieve on the ground in Afghanistan? Moreover, what does any of this primitive tribal confrontation have to do with distant Israel?

Fighting in Iraq subsequent to the Second Gulf War? We have seen a host of warring sects (Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) and "third parties" (al-Qaeda, Iran, Syria) attempt to exert their influence and direct the outcome of this chaos, but again, what does Israel have to do with it?

The past and current wars involving the various Arab countries and Iran have exacted an exponentially larger number of casualties than all of the combined Arab-Israeli conflicts. The enmity between Sunnis and Shiites (deemed heretics by the Sunnis) is a far greater threat to regional stability than the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Why then are we now being told that Israel is the primary source of Middle East instability? Answer: Because this is indeed what the Obama administration believes.

Although the U.S. vice president's staff denies he made the comment, it has been reported that Biden alleged that Israel is jeopardizing U.S. troops:

“People who heard what Biden said [to Israeli officials behind closed doors] were stunned,” the centrist Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported. “‘This is starting to get dangerous for us,’ Biden castigated his interlocutors. ‘What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace.’”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34300_Page2.html

Several days after the Biden imbroglio, the magazine Foreign Policy ran a story on its website saying that General Petraeus had sent a briefing team to the Pentagon at the beginning of the year “with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”

Next, ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper asked David Axelrod twice whether “Israel’s intransigence on the housing issue put the lives of US troops at risk.” Axelrod said he wouldn’t put it in those terms, but given the opportunity, he refused to deny it.

General Petraeus, however, put the canard to rest. Speaking at St. Anselm College, he stated that the lack of progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations makes the situation for moderate Arab states "more challenging", but denied ever saying that the U.S.-Israel relationship places American soldiers at risk (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/03/can-israel-survive-obamas-reelection.html).

In short, although Obama and Hillary claim the U.S.-Israel relationship is "rock solid", it's not the case. Axelrod's evasive answer to Jake Tapper would lead anyone to believe that Israel is undermining the American effort in Afghanistan and jeopardizing the lives of U.S. soldiers.

But then what do you expect? Someone will ultimately need to be blamed for Obama's Afghan fiasco. Why not Israel?

Jerusalem: An Open Letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,

We're neighbors, and in the past we've exchanged greetings.

I'm not a member of the Likud party, and I don't think I ever voted for the Likud, owing to my middle-of-the-road leanings. Which is not to say that other members of my household haven't voted for you: As is commonly said, where there are two Jews, there are three opinions.

I would like to say a few personal words to you about the Ramat Shlomo crisis - or "non-crisis" as it is now being called - with the United States. It has me enraged.

I don't think Ramat Shlomo is a "non-crisis", given the orchestrated demonization of Israel resulting from and facilitated by this matter. It is indeed a full-blown crisis, albeit a manufactured to order crisis: After you apologized in private and in public to Vice President Biden, the matter seemed to have subsided until someone in the Obama administration decided to stir it up for political leverage.

The Obama administration made a calculated decision that the announcement by the Jerusalem planning commission of the theoretical future construction of 1,600 apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem, which will remain part of Israel as part of any two-state settlement agreement, should be used to extract negotiating concessions from your government. Regarding Israel’s construction policy in East Jerusalem, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, wrote in an op-ed, entitled "For Israel and America, a Disagreement, Not a Crisis", in today's New York Times:

That policy is not Mr. Netanyahu’s alone but was also that of former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Golda Meir — in fact of every Israeli government going back to the city’s reunification in 1967. Consistently, Israel has held that Jerusalem should remain its undivided capital and that both Jews and Arabs have the right to build anywhere in the city.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/opinion/18oren.html

Mike Oren, with whom I served in the army and whom I admire, would also characterize Ramat Shlomo as a "disagreement", i.e. a non-crisis. A mere disagreement? Note the following language in an article entitled "Israel Seeks to Mend Rift With the U.S." from The New York Times:

The United States was still waiting for a response from Israel to a number of demands made by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in a telephone call last Friday, including a halt to new building projects in East Jerusalem and other acts that could be deemed provocative in the delicate atmosphere surrounding the peace talks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html?hp

Without a favorable response, you are being denied permission to meet with Hillary or Vice President Biden next week in the United States. Peace talks? There are no peace talks. As reported by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Obama has made it known to all that he does not like you, that he doesn't think you're bright, and that he is seeking Israeli regime change. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/what-obama-is-actually-trying-to-do-in-israel/37548/

Obama will obviously squeeze Israel for all its worth without requiring anything from the Palestinian Authority. Concerning the demands being made solely of Israel, I cannot say it better than Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt:

"Why was Abbas’ refusal to accept the US request and Israeli offer for direct negotiations not an 'insult and affront' to the United States and the Vice President?

Why was Assad’s meeting with Ahmadinejad the day after the US announced that we were sending an ambassador to Syria ignored by the State Department and not deemed to be an 'insult and affront' to the United States?

Why is Palestinian Authority incitement of rioters in Jerusalem and elsewhere not condemned by this administration and not an 'insult and affront' to the United States and the Vice President?

Why is the naming of the main public square in Ramallah by Abbas in honor of Fatah terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, murderer of 38 Israelis - 13 of them little kids not an impediment to the peace process and not an insult and affront to the US and Israel????

Not to mention – why does this administration insist on viewing construction in a vacant piece of land, adjacent to existing housing seen as thwarting the two state solution?"

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/friends-do-not-treat-friends-manner

Obama now is also claiming that Ramat Shlomo is a non-crisis and professing his friendship:

“'Israel’s one of our closes allies,' [Obama] told Fox News. 'The Israeli people have a special bond and it’s not going to go away.'

However, the US president said that the new housing units 'weren't helpful' in carving out a peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The expansion of Ramat Shlomo was a poor choice for Israel, Obama said, but added that, 'friends are going to disagree sometimes.'

'What we've said is we need both sides to take steps to make sure that we can rebuild trust,' he said. 'What we need right now is both sides to recognize that it is in their interests to move this peace process forward.'"

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171252

Well, I've got news for you: Obama is no "friend" of Israel. Friends engage in discussion without preconditions. Friends attempt to iron out their differences without inciting others to riot. Friends do not engage in blackmail.

Obama will not agree to allow you to meet next week with Hillary or Vice President Biden in the U.S. if you do not make the concessions that they are demanding? No disaster. Let Obama continue with his policy of undermining friends while appeasing enemies, i.e. the Obama Doctrine. Israel's friendship with the United States, premised upon common underpinnings of democracy and freedom, will remain intact.

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

[Three rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza over the past 24 hours. The last qassam rocket killed a Thai agricultural worker. Obama stands responsible for legitimizing this renewed violence; the blood is on his hands.]

Netanyahu and Biden Talk Again, But the Damage Has Already Been Done

As reported by Haaretz, Netanyahu and Biden spoke yesterday in order to bring some sense of normalcy back to the relationship between Israel and the U.S.:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke on the phone Tuesday night in a bid to ease tensions between the U.S. and Israel over a plan to construct 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem.

The New York Times also said that the American administration had confirmed the conversation. The Prime Minister's Bureau did not elaborate on the details of the conversation, which lasted until 2 A.M. Netanyahu's advisers Yitzhak Molcho and Ron Dermer, along with Israeli envoy to the U.S. Michael Oren, were also present.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157020.html

Ambassador Mike Oren is also now claiming he never said that the U.S./Israel relationship had hit a 35-year nadir. Regardless of what Mike did or did not say, the U.S./Israel relationship will recover. What will not recover, however, is whatever was left of the international dignity and prestige of the Obama administration.

Too many commentators have now noted that Obama is tough on friends and easy on enemies, i.e. what I refer to as the "Obama Doctrine". Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic is even saying, based on discussions with White House insiders, that the purpose of this manufactured crisis was to bring about regime change in Israel (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/what-obama-is-actually-trying-to-do-in-israel/37548/), something Obama did not dare attempt in Iran for fear of being accused of meddling, but something Obama was willing to do to harm allies in Honduras.

Who in the Obama administration took the lead role in blowing this crisis over 1,600 theoretical apartments out of all proportion? No one is willing to take the blame. It is interesting to observe that there have been no direct conversations between Obama and Netanyahu intended to straighten out this mess.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to observe the reception that Hillary receives when she addresses a plenary session at the AIPAC Policy Conference next week.

Jerusalem and the Obama Doctrine: Appease Your Enemies, Undermine Your Friends

I was appalled by Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai's announcement regarding the intention to build 1,600 new apartments in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo. The timing of the announcement, which caused Netanyahu great embarrassment during the visit of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden to Israel, was labeled by Yishai a "technical matter", and Yishai claimed that he had no intention of insulting the U.S. The apartments in Ramat Shlomo, however, are intended for ultra-Orthodox Jews, i.e. Yishai's Shas Party constituency, and there was nothing accidental about the timing of this announcement. I despise Shas, whose leadership has been associated with no small number of scandals in the past, and even Yishai should know better than to anger Israel's principal ally.

Yishai's announcement blindsided Netanyahu and placed him in a bind: The Israeli government’s ban on Jewish building on the West Bank does not apply to East Jerusalem, where, for example, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Wailing Wall, Judaism's holiest site, are located, and any forthright condemnation of Yishai by Netanyahu would also have jeopardized Netanyahu's standing with his right wing constituency. The undertakings provided by Netanyahu concerning a moratorium on construction also in East Jerusalem had, of political necessity, been tacit. What to do? Netanyahu personally apologized to Biden, explained to Biden that construction of these apartments was not imminent, and coordinated with the U.S. vice president a public apology.

For Obama, however, Netanyahu's apologies were not enough. Obama gave explicit instructions to Hillary to call Netanyahu to express his personal outrage. As reported by The New York Times:

"In a tense, 43-minute phone call on Friday morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s plan for new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem sent a 'deeply negative signal' about Israeli-American relations, and not just because it spoiled a visit by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/world/middleeast/13diplo.html?hp

Observe what is reported first by The Times: The phone call lasted 43 minutes. Are we to understand that someone stood beside Hillary with a stopwatch in order to time the conversation? For whose benefit is this extraneous information intended? Obviously, it is meant for consumption by the Muslim Middle East, which Obama is still intent on appeasing. Obama, notwithstanding his failed overtures to Syria and Iran, still does not understand that his would-be friends respond to strength, not weakness, and this public castigation of a longstanding ally, guilty of a misdemeanor, will only serve to harden the intransigence of the Palestinian Authority and might even spark renewed violence - of the kind we saw yesterday.

But more to the point, Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons unimpeded by Obama, millions are dying in the Congo, and Obama's most pressing foreign policy concern is the announcement of the construction of 1,600 apartments at some unknown future date within an existing Jewish community of Jerusalem. This is what will prevent a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which has yet to recognize the legitimacy of Israel within any borders whatsoever?

Five thousand more Jews in East Jerusalem in several more years, should it ever happen? What a horror story! Can you imagine the scandal if Israel were officially to deny Israeli Arabs the right to live in Jewish neighborhoods. It is indeed peculiar - or not so peculiar - how Israel, of all Middle Eastern countries, is branded "apartheid".

Sure, I support a two-state solution, a return to the 1967 boundaries with land swaps as necessary, and a moratorium involving West Bank construction, but does this mean that the Palestinian state must be without Jews, i.e. Judenfrei? Ultimately, when the Palestinian state comes into being, we will all need to learn to live together harmoniously in close proximity.

Wouldn't it be a wonderful surprise if only once Obama could find the courage to challenge the human rights records of China, Burma, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria or North Korea? Instead, his administration is intent upon undermining the relationships of the U.S. with such longstanding friends as Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras, Japan and Israel.

Meanwhile, not surprisingly, the EU's head of foreign policy, the hideous Baroness Catherine Ashton, has chosen this opportunity to declare that improved trade relations between Israel and the EU are contingent upon Israel making immediate peace with the Palestinians. There was no concomitant demand from Ashton that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist.