I Accuse: Obama Selling Arms to Qatar, a Terrorist State

Yesterday, Obama declared "Today, the entire world is appalled by the brutal murder of Jim Foley by the terrorist group." But is Obama truly "appalled" by the beheading of Foley, a freelance journalist, by the Islamic State, alternately known as ISIL or ISIS? If so, why is he selling billion of dollars of arms to Qatar, a tiny country which is the primary benefactor of Hamas, and whose citizens are believed to have funded the Islamic State and the radical al-Nusra Front? What precautions has Obama taken to prevent the advanced arms now being sold to Qatar from being transferred to these terrorist organizations? Why did Obama demand that Israel agree to Qatari mediation of Israel's war with Hamas in Gaza?

I submitted a guest opinion piece to a senior editor of The Washington Post, but yesterday he turned it down, explaining only "we're not able to use your piece." Below is the op-ed that I prepared for WaPo. Read it and decide for yourselves why WaPo could not "use" it:

Kerry, Cairo and Qatar: The Mystery Surrounding an American Foreign Policy Fiasco

Do you like a good mystery? If so, perhaps you might care to conjecture why President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recently demanded that Qatar and Turkey, instead of Egypt,  mediate Israel’s war with Hamas, against Israel’s best interests.

Turkey? Everyone knows where Turkey, straddling Europe and Asia, is located. There’s a good chance that you’ve visited Istanbul’s Grand Bazaar or at least watched James Bond ride a motorcycle over its rooftops in “Skyfall.” Then, too, you’ve probably read several of its prime minister’s bizarre anti-Semitic pronouncements.

But I’m not here to talk Turkey. Rather, let’s focus our attention on Qatar. Can you correctly pronounce Qatar? Most Americans cannot manage the guttural Arabic pronunciation. More important, if I were to hand you a map of the world, could you place your pinkie on this country, which has a population of 2 million and is the size of Connecticut? Chances are you couldn’t.

Of course, you’ve probably read that Qatar will be hosting the 2022 World Cup. You might also know that Qatar, which has the world's third largest natural gas reserves, is the world's richest country per capita.

Additionally of interest, on July 14 Qatar inked an agreement to purchase $11 billion of arms from the United States, including 10 Patriot anti-missile batteries, 24 Apache attack helicopters and several hundred Javelin anti-tank missiles. Why is this Lilliputian-sized country so hungry for armaments? More to the point, why did Obama agree to this sale of advanced weaponry to a country believed to be the primary benefactor of Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the United States? Worse still, Qataris have been accused of financing the radical al-Nusra rebel faction in Syria as well as the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, which is busy burying Yazidi women and children alive. None other than Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres has labelled Qatar “the world’s largest funder of terror.”

Moreover, why was Obama so adamant about making Qatar and Turkey the mediators, and not allowing Egypt, which had initiated the mediation process, to continue its work? In order to reach any semblance of a conclusion as to why Obama insisted upon Qatar and Turkey, it is necessary to wind the clock back a few years.

Foreign policy in the Arab world cannot be conducted without going through Egypt with its population of 82 million. Obama certainly knew this in the past, and in his highly heralded June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, less than six months into his first term as president, Obama declared:

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

A new beginning? Over the course of the next five years, things did not go as planned for the Obama administration, particularly as regards Egypt. In December 2010, the Arab Spring swept the Middle East, and when the demonstrations reached Cairo, Obama effectively demanded that Egypt's long-time president, Hosni Mubarak, a friend of the West, step down. Subsequently, Egypt’s first democratically elected president, Mohammed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was planning to attend the 67^th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2012, was invited to the White House. However, the invitation was rescinded when the US embassy in Cairo came under attack by an angry mob on September 11, the same day on which the U.S. diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi were assaulted, leading to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Obama didn’t want Morsi’s visit to imperil his reelection campaign.

America’s relations with Egypt grew steadily worse. With the Egyptian economy tanking and the Muslim Brotherhood attempting to consolidate power, Morsi was removed from office in a July 2013 coup by the Egyptian military, which controls much of Egyptian industry. Irked by this affront to what was hoped to be nascent Egyptian democracy, the Obama administration responded by freezing “large-scale military systems and cash assistance to the government pending credible progress toward an inclusive, democratically elected civilian government through free and fair elections.” As a consequence, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is now shopping for arms in Russia.

Worse still, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry poured oil on the fire by seeking to replace Egypt, which has a common border with Gaza, with Qatar and Turkey as mediators of Israel’s conflict with Hamas. The Egyptian military despises Hamas, owing to its close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and it came as no surprise that Kerry was subjected to a demeaning metal detector test before being allowed to meet with Sisi in Cairo last month, while trying to force his way into the negotiation process.

Frustrated by his frigid reception in Cairo, Kerry hastily flew to Paris, where he convened a meeting with diplomats from France, Britain, Italy and Germany, and also the foreign ministers of Qatar and Turkey. Representatives from Egypt and the Palestinian Authority were not invited to the secretary of state’s soirée, which resulted in nothing, but added insult to America’s traditional Arab allies.

Having infuriated Egypt, Saudi Arabia (whose relations with Qatar are strained), and the Palestinian Authority in one fell swoop, and with Israeli journalists from both the right and the left lambasting the incompetence of America’s secretary of state, Kerry conveniently disappeared on a seven-day voyage to Afghanistan, Burma, Australia, the Solomon Islands and Hawaii.

Back now to the original question: Why did Barack Obama seek to impose Qatar as a mediator upon Israel? Was it really because the U.S. was seeking a country with financial leverage over Hamas? This hardly makes sense, given Egypt’s control over the flow of goods across its mutual border with Gaza, which trumps any amount of Qatari funding.

Alternatively, was this an expression of petulance on the part of Obama, given General Sisi’s arrest of Mohammed Morsi, thus putting the kibosh on Egypt’s fleeting experiment with democracy and the president’s “new beginning”?

Or was this just the effect of jetlag on John Kerry?

Whatever the reason, it has proven another painful diplomatic setback for the United States.

[According to Fatah, Qatar forced Hamas to break the most recent truce arranged by Egypt and threatened to expel Khaled Mashal, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, from Qatar, where he maintains his offices, if he did not reopen rocket fire on Israel (see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/184225#.U_WXq5scTct and http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4561522,00.html). On Monday, US State Department spokesperson Marie Harf admitted: "Today, [Kerry] has spoken with the Israeli prime minister, the Israeli foreign minister, the Turkish foreign minister, and the Qatari foreign minister. We need countries that have leverage over leaders of Hamas who can help put a cease-fire in place."]

PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS! THE SALE OF ARMS TO QATAR MUST BE STOPPED!

Bergdahl and Increased Aid to Pakistan: Another Obama Foreign Affairs Embarrassment

In a Washington Post article entitled "Inside the Obama administration’s debate over freeing Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-obama-administrations-debate-over-freeing-sgt-bowe-bergdahl/2014/06/03/470a0f8e-eb4f-11e3-93d2-edd4be1f5d9e_story.html?hpid=z1), Adam Goldman and Scott Wilson write:

"[Army Sgt. Bowe] Bergdahl slipped away from his post in Afghanistan’s Paktika province in June 2009 and fell into Taliban hands. He was then moved across the border into the tribal areas of Pakistan, where he was held by the Haqqani network, a ­U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization with connections to Pakistan’s intelligence service.

. . . .

'There were negotiating paths we could have explored other than the Taliban in Doha,' said David Sedney, who until last year served as the Pentagon’s top official overseeing policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 'Specifically, putting more pressure on the Pakistanis to get him or get us more intelligence. I am not aware of them actually helping us, despite repeated requests.'"

Yes, Bergdahl was being held in Pakistan (Osama bin Laden, of course, also holed up in Pakistan), and the Obama administration was unable to prevail upon Islamabad to assist in achieving his release.

Meanwhile, as reported by The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-hikes-Pakistan-aid-by-40-in-2014-budget/articleshow/19486952.cms) in April 2013:

"US President Barack Obama on Wednesday proposed a 40% increase in American aid to Pakistan, amounting to $1.4 billion, as part of his $3.77 trillion budget that focusses on job creation and economic growth.

Obama among other things proposed to increase the US aid to Pakistan under overseas contingency operations to $1.4 billion for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2013, an increase of 40% than the $1 billion that he had proposed in the last year's budget for the fiscal 2013."

Perhaps one of my readers would care to ask Jen Psaki to explain away this wholly undeserved largesse.

Ruth Marcus, "Monica Lewinsky does Hillary Clinton a big favor": Benghazi Recedes From the Spotlight?

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Monica Lewinsky does Hillary Clinton a big favor" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-monica-lewinsky-does-hillary-clinton-a-big-favor/2014/05/06/36657da4-d55f-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html), Ruth Marcus writes:

"Monica Lewinsky may not have intended it this way, but she just did Hillary Clinton a big favor.

. . . .

Hillary Clinton, humiliated in her own way, emerged seemingly stronger. Her marriage endured; she became senator and secretary of state. Having put cracks in the glass ceiling, she is poised to break it, should she choose, in 2016."

Perhaps Ruth would care to enlighten us as to how Hillary's marriage has "endured." Is the marriage "real," or is it a marriage of convenience serving the blind narcissistic ambition of both Hillary and Bill?


If Monica has done Hillary a favor, maybe it is because the Benghazi debacle has faded from the spotlight even for one day.


Note Maureen Dowd's op-ed on the same topic: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/05/maureen-dowd-burning-beret-first-bury.html

Paul Krugman, "Inventing a Failure": Lies, Damned Lies?

Has Obamacare turned the corner? You might not be able to keep your doctor, you might not be able to keep your health care plan, and it might cost you more, but Paul Krugman thinks so.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Inventing a Failure" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/opinion/krugman-inventing-a-failure.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), Krugman writes:

"Mainstream politicians didn’t always try to advance their agenda through lies, damned lies and — in this case — bogus statistics. And the fact that this has become standard operating procedure for a major party bodes ill for America’s future.

. . . .

The really big policy news of 2014, at least so far, is the spectacular recovery of the Affordable Care Act from its stumbling start, thanks to an extraordinary late surge that took enrollment beyond early projections. The age mix of enrollees has improved; insurance companies are broadly satisfied with the risk pool. Multiple independent surveys confirm that the percentage of Americans without health insurance has already declined substantially, and there’s every reason to believe that over the next two years the act will meet its overall goals, except in states that refuse to expand Medicaid.

. . . .

So Republicans are spreading disinformation about health reform because it works, and because they can — there is no sign that they pay any political price when their accusations are proved false."

"Mainstream politicians didn’t always try to advance their agenda through lies, damned lies"? Peculiar. The Obama administration's attempt to blame the attack on the Benghazi consulate on an Internet video amounted to just this sort of mendaciousness, but I am wandering off target. Is Obamacare the success that Krugman makes it out to be? Are Republicans hoodwinking the electorate?

In a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The White House’s Obamacare victory lap looking more like a false start" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/29/white-houses-obamacare-victory-lap-looking-more-like-a-false-start/?tid=pm_politics_pop), Aaron Blake observes (my emphasis in red):

"As we have noted, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows approval of the law and of Obama's implementation of it have dropped after a momentary boost. Americans disapprove of the law overall 48-44 and disapprove of Obama's implementation 57-37.

What's perhaps more telling is that, despite the rare good news of the past few weeks, their perceptions of the law remain basically as-is -- that is, pretty dim. To wit:
•Americans say 50-41 that the implementation of the law has been worse than they expected rather than better.
•They say 44-24 that the health-care system is getting worse rather than getting better as a result of Obamacare.
•They say 29-14 that the quality of care is getting worse rather than better.
•They say 47-8 that their health-care costs are increasing due to the law rather than decreasing.
•They say 58-11 that the overall cost of health care in the United States is increasing rather than decreasing. "

These negative perceptions of Obamacare are all the result of Republican lies? I don't think so, unless Krugman would have us believe that Americans, who elected Obama twice to be their president, are all dunderheads, even when it involves their wallets and purses.

Is the Affordable Care Act affordable? Obviously many Americans don't think so.

What will be the ultimate effect of the Affordable Care Act on America's national debt? Or stated otherwise, is the Affordable Care Act affordable to the nation as a whole? The jury is still out - particularly given a second delay by the Obama administration of the employer mandate in February - but the prognosis is not sanguine, notwithstanding slightly lower deficit estimates (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/14/us-usa-healthcare-premiums-idUSBREA3D1KQ20140414).

Maureen Dowd, "A Wit for All Seasons": Welcome to a World of Superficiality in Which Jesters Are Kings

Stephen Colbert has been tapped by CBS to replace David Letterman as host of the "Late Show," and his selection appears acceptable to both right and left. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "America’s heartland has nothing to fear from Stephen Colbert" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-americas-heartland-shouldnt-fear-stephen-colbert/2014/04/11/1f70ab98-c1ad-11e3-b574-f8748871856a_story.html), Kathleen Parker writes of her appearance on "The Colbert Report":

"To put it plainly, the fellow who will be sitting in the 'Late Show' chair is nothing like the character on the 'Repor(t),' which is both a delightful and grievous prospect. Many will mourn the exit of Comedy Central’s Colbert, but millions more will celebrate his new role. Having met the real-life Colbert, the lad who grew up in Charleston, S.C., I’m confident viewers will find him every bit the Everyman as was all-time favorite Johnny Carson.

The one time I appeared on 'The Colbert Report,' Colbert met me in the green room beforehand and, speaking as the polite Southerner he is, said, 'Now, I’m going to be in character onstage, so don’t let me put words in your mouth.' You can’t say I wasn’t warned."

Parker's conclusion:

"The notion that a fake persona’s comedy routine is a threat to the American heartland bears a striking resemblance to the sort of literal-mindedness that leads to inquisitions and the Taliban. If you can’t take a joke, you could always change the channel. But you’ll miss all the fun."

Meanwhile, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "A Wit for All Seasons" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/opinion/sunday/a-wit-for-all-seasons.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Maureen Dowd also describes her appearance on "The Colbert Report":

"I DON’T remember much about being on Stephen Colbert’s show.

It all passed in a blur of fear.

I remember him coming into the makeup room to remind me that he was going to be in character as a jerk.

I remember that he held up my book about gender and asked if it was 'soft-core porn.'

I remember he asked me if I wanted to hold his Peabody and I told him I did, so he jumped up to grab the TV award from the mantel."

Dowd goes on to say:

"Carson was the Walter Lippmann of comedy, wielding enormous influence over the reputations of politicians he mocked. Stewart and Colbert took it a step further. They became Murrow and Cronkite for a generation of young viewers."

Stewart and Colbert have become today's Murrow and Cronkite? Perhaps Dowd is correct. Today, public opinion and politics are being shaped by one-liners instead of serious analysis.

But why should we be surprised? Could it be that the brains of many youngsters are not accessible to anything beyond superficial comedy routines?

In a Washington Post article entitled "Serious reading takes a hit from online scanning and skimming, researchers say" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/serious-reading-takes-a-hit-from-online-scanning-and-skimming-researchers-say/2014/04/06/088028d2-b5d2-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html?hpid=z4), Michael S. Rosenwald writes:

"Humans, [cognitive neuroscientists] warn, seem to be developing digital brains with new circuits for skimming through the torrent of information online. This alternative way of reading is competing with traditional deep reading circuitry developed over several millennia.

'I worry that the superficial way we read during the day is affecting us when we have to read with more in-depth processing,' said Maryanne Wolf, a Tufts University cognitive neuroscientist and the author of 'Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain.'

If the rise of nonstop cable TV news gave the world a culture of sound bites, the Internet, Wolf said, is bringing about an eye byte culture. Time spent online — on desktop and mobile devices — was expected to top five hours per day in 2013 for U.S. adults, according to eMarketer, which tracks digital behavior. That’s up from three hours in 2010."

Books? Analysis demanding prolonged thought? All a thing of the past.

Welcome to a world of superficiality in which jesters are kings.

Jackson Diehl, "Obama’s Middle East fallacy": Should Netanyahu Demand Palestinian Acceptance of a Jewish State?

Although I am not a "follower" (see below) of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, I believe it is imperative that any lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians require that the Palestinians accept Israel as a "Jewish state." Why? Simple. UN Resolution 181, adopted in November 1947, was the basis for the division of British Mandatory Palestine into two states, one for the "Arabs" and one for the "Jews." The Jews living in Mandatory Palestine accepted the resolution, whereas the Arab states surrounding Mandatory Palestine rejected the resolution and attacked the fledgling state of Israel upon its creation.

Can Palestinians accept the premise of a Jewish state in the heart of a Muslim Middle East? The answer coming from Palestinian Authority Abbas is "no," yet such acceptance is rudimentary for an enduring peace. The alternative is for Abbas and other Muslim leaders to say that they can accept an Israel, but not what Israel actually is, i.e. a homeland for the Jewish people. Without such acceptance, there is no real peace.

Kerry originally agreed to this demand from Netanyahu for acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state, but recently performed an embarrassing about-face. As reported by The Jerusalem Post last week (http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Officials-slam-Kerry-for-saying-PM-wrong-to-insist-Palestinians-declare-Israel-Jewish-state-345479):

"On Thursday, Kerry told members of Congress that international law already defined Israel as a Jewish state, and called Netanyahu’s continued call for a public declaration of Israel’s Jewish character from the Palestinians 'a mistake.'"

What accounts for Kerry's change of heart? Answer: Imminent failure.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s Middle East fallacy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-obamas-middle-east-fallacy/2014/03/16/c72b273e-aad1-11e3-98f6-8e3c562f9996_story.html?hpid=z3), Jackson Diehl acknowledges that Obama sought to strong-arm Netanyahu prior to his arrival in Washington two weeks ago by warning of dire consequences if Netanyahu did not agree to a US-drafted "framework agreement" for peace. Diehl observes that Abbas, in the past, refused to act on all US peace initiatives:

"The Palestinian president — who was elected to a four-year term in 2005 and has remained in office for five years after its expiration — turned down President George W. Bush’s request that he sign on to a similar framework in 2008. In 2010, after Obama strong-armed Netanyahu into declaring a moratorium on Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank, Abbas refused to negotiate for nine of the designated 10 months, then broke off the talks after two meetings.

Abbas agreed to Kerry’s proposal for another nine-month negotiating window last year in exchange for Israel’s release of more than 100 Palestinian prisoners, including many convicted of murdering civilians. Abbas hailed them as heroes. Then he embarked on a public campaign to deep-six the two principal provisions Israel has sought in the U.S. framework, both of which have had Washington’s support. One would allow Israeli soldiers to remain along the Palestinian-Jordanian border during an extended transition period; the other would involve Palestinian recognition that Israel is a Jewish state."

Diehl, however, does not explain Abbas's past unwillingness to enter into a binding peace agreement, whose rationale is to be found in remarks made by the Palestinian Authority president to none other than Diehl in 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html):

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

In fact, nothing has changed for Abbas over the past five years, and this logic, premised upon survival, still guides Abbas, who is in his tenth year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority.

Diehl's current opinion piece continues (my italics):

"The 'Jewish state' question is hard for many non-Israelis to understand: Who cares what Arabs call Israel, so long as they accept it? But for Netanyahu and his followers, the question is essential. Arab leaders have never conceded that a non-Arab state can hold a permanent place in the Middle East, they say. Until they do so, there will be no real peace, because Palestinians will keep pressing to weaken and eventually eliminate Israel’s Jewish majority.

Obama and Kerry have endorsed the Jewish-state principle; their hope was to use it to leverage Netanyahu’s acceptance of framework language stipulating that the territory of a Palestinian state would be equal to, if not exactly the same as, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some in the Israeli media are betting that Netanyahu most likely would accept that outcome — albeit with many reservations — even at the risk of losing his right-wing governing coalition. After all, the price of saying no, repeatedly underlined by Kerry and Obama, is daunting: more boycotts, more anti-Israel initiatives at the United Nations, perhaps even another violent Palestinian uprising."

Well, as observed above, I do not count myself among Netanyahu's "followers," yet I do perceive the importance of requiring Abbas to accept Israel for what it is - a Jewish state. After all, what is the value of Abbas accepting Israel for what it is not, which in fact does not amount to any kind of acceptance at all?

Moreover, Diehl is mistaken: As noted above, Obama and Kerry no longer endorse the "Jewish-state principle."

But more to the point, why does Obama feel the need to ambush and strong-arm allies, while bending over backwards to accommodate American foes, e.g. promise "flexibility" to Putin in his second term?

Although both Obama and Kerry are desperate for "legacies," their peace initiative involving Israel and the Palestinians, which ignores Gaza and Hamas, was dead in the water at its outset.