Obama to Meet With Emir of Qatar on Tuesday: Obama Seeks Modus Vivendi With ISIS and al-Qaeda

President Obama will meet at the White House with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, on Tuesday. Yes, that's right: Obama will meet with the leader of Qatar, a country that has funded ISIS, al-Nusra and al-Qaeda; however, he remains unwilling to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in another two weeks.

Apparently, this meeting is in keeping with a new Obama policy to explore avenues of discourse and understanding with Middle East terror organizations.

Yesterday, I wrote:

"The US State Department's Marie Harf declared three days ago, 'We can not kill our way out of this war' and went on to say that we must 'go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs.' So is it now Obama's policy also to reach a negotiated settlement with ISIS?"

Obviously, there was nothing accidental about Harf's comments. Obama is indeed seeking a modus vivendi with ISIS and the other monstrous terror organizations that plague the Middle East and the rest of the world. Maybe he intends to offer jobs to their memberships in order to restore order in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and a host of other countries.

Meanwhile with Netanyahu's speech before Congress drawing near, a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Obama Parries Questions on Iran Deal From Arabs as Well as Israelis" by Jay Solomon is informing us that Arab governments are also placing Obama on notice of their disapproval of any deal with Iran that would allow Tehran to keep its nuclear weapons development capabilities. Saudi Arabia has placed America's president on notice that they will develop technologies equivalent to those of Iran, i.e. a Middle East nuclear arms race is in the offing.

Can it get any worse?

New York Times Editorial, "Egypt’s Crisis Across the Border With Libya": Is Obama Seeking a Negotiated Settlement With ISIS?

You will recall that I wrote in my previous blog entry:

"After ISIS beheaded 21 Egyptian Copts in Libya, Cairo sent its air force to bomb ISIS bases in Libya, and Qatar, which funds ISIS, expressed its dismay over the attack. A brouhaha between Qatar and Egypt resulted."

Well today, The New York Times is weighing in on this controversy in an editorial entitled "Egypt’s Crisis Across the Border With Libya":

"[T]he [Egyptian] airstrikes marked a significant expansion of Egypt’s direct military involvement in Libya, and there is little evidence that the government of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has thought through its response or coordinated it with other nations, including the United States.

. . . .

For some time, Arab states have taken sides in this civil war, turning it into a proxy fight and fostering the very chaos in which the Islamic State thrives. Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have covertly backed General Hifter’s campaign to drive out the Islamists and their allies, while Qatar and Turkey reportedly have been backing Libya Dawn.

. . . .

Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, cannot afford to get bogged down in a war in Libya; there are staggering challenges at home, including reviving a battered economy and combating a domestic insurgency."

Qatar and Turkey - the two countries that Obama demanded that Israel accept as mediators in its most recent war with Hamas - are backing Libya Dawn? Just what is Libya Dawn? In fact, it is a group of Islamic militias that fly the flag of ISIS.

Or in other words, The New York Times is asking that Egypt not attack a branch of ISIS in Libya that beheaded 21 of its Christian citizens, because any such actions must be coordinated with the United States, which is conducting airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.

Coordinate strategy against ISIS with the United States? Maybe someone would care to inform me exactly what is Obama's strategy regarding ISIS. The US State Department's Marie Harf declared three days ago, "We can not kill our way out of this war" and went on to say that we must "go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs." So is it now Obama's policy also to reach a negotiated settlement with ISIS?

If only we could know who wrote this editorial for The New York Times . . .

US State Department Spokesdimwit Marie Harf: ISIS and Hamas "Quite Different in Some Ways"

When asked about Netanyahu's comparison of ISIS and Hamas on Wednesday, US State Department spokesdimwit spokesperson Marie Harf responded:

"They’re both foreign terrorist organizations designated under United States law, but I’m not going to do any more comparison of them. Obviously, they’re quite different in some ways."

Harf's circumlocutions remind me of the painfully awful book launch speech scene from Bridget Jones's Diary (2001).

Well, following the execution by Hamas on Friday of 18 alleged "collaborators," even the Palestian Authority president's secretary-general, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, is claiming that these executions are akin to those being perpertrated by the Islamic State.

Perhaps someone would care to ask Harf again for her "expert" opinion.

White House Spokesman Josh Earnest: Not Appropriate for Hamas to Restore Rocket Fire

As just reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/day-32-hamas-warns-that-without-deal-on-harbor-itll-resume-attacks-friday/):

"White House Spokesman Josh Earnest sounded a cautious note today, saying that the White House 'did not believe it was appropriate for Hamas to restore rocket fire' in a tempered response to the reescalation of violence between Israel and Gaza."

Guess what, Josh? Firing rockets at civilian population centers is more than inappropriate. It's a war crime.

I never thought it possible that I could miss Jay Carney.

Consider also what, again according to The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/day-33-us-hopes-for-new-gaza-truce-in-coming-hours-livni-submits-plan-to-end-conflict/), US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf had to tell reporters today:

"What Hamas did today in its decision to resume rocket fire puts the citizens of Gaza under greater risk."

Hamas rocket fire puts the citizens of Gaza under greater risk? True, we are being informed by the Israel Defense Forces, that 20 percent of the rockets fired by Hamas on Friday fell on Gaza, but apparently Harf also has a problem declaring that rocket fire aimed at Israeli civilian population centers is a war crime.

Let there be no mistake about it: Obama & Co. are not friends of Israel.

Bimbo Diplomacy: Obama Again Makes Nice to Iran

Attempting to justify Obama administration efforts to stymie additional Congressional sanctions against Iran, US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf declared on Monday (see: http://freebeacon.com/state-department-defends-proposed-pause-in-new-iranian-sanctions/):

"Well, I don’t — I don’t know if I’ll say how they should interpret it, but I’ll — let’s just talk a little bit about this. This — we’re only asking for a pause of a short period of time here. And what we want is for our sanctions to be lined up with our negotiating strategy. So we have an obligation right now to test this cautiously encouraging tone that we hear out of the new Iranian government. Our negotiating team believes it’s the best way to take a short pause, to give that diplomacy a chance to play out a little bit because, indeed, it’s all of our, and Congress’s preference that this be resolved diplomatically. There’s numerous statements from members of Congress who have spoken to this issue. So we’ll keep working with Congress. They’ve been an incredibly important partner. We wouldn’t be at the table today where we are if it hadn’t been for the incredibly tough sanctions that certainly the international community, but also Congress, imposed on Iran. So we’ll keep having the discussion with them but we very firmly believe that we — our sanctions strategy needs to be linked up and in sync with our negotiating strategy, that the US needs to speak with one voice when we’re sitting down at the table here to try and negotiate, which is going to be a tough diplomatic process."

A "cautiously encouraging tone that we hear out of the new Iranian government"? Oh really?

First, let's not forget who calls the shots in Iran - Supreme Leader Khamenei. Iranian President Rouhani can say what he wants, but ultimately Khamenei decides.

And what has Khamenei being "deciding" recently?

Khamenei declared on Sunday, "The Zionist regime is an illegitimate and bastard regime" (see: http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Khamenei-Zionist-regime-is-an-illegitimate-and-bastard-regime-330487).

And as reported by NBC News (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/04/21303556-american-flags-burned-as-10000-iranians-protest-on-us-embassy-siege-anniversary?lite), "At least 10,000 Iranians protested outside the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran Monday, burning American flags and effigies of Barack Obama on the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the building."

Does this sound "encouraging" to you?

Further into her talk, after refusing to answer whether Iran is making reciprocal gestures to the US, Harf declared:

"So, this is a negotiation. Nothing has been agreed to yet. Again, we're going to go to Geneva this week and continue our discussions with the P5+1 and Iran and hopefully make more progress, because it's in all of our interests, all of our partners in the Gulf, Israel, everyone's interest, to resolve this problem diplomatically."

Excuse me, Marie, but if "nothing has been agreed to yet," how can the Obama administration hope to "make more progress"?

But heck, we can all be certain that the Islamic Republic of Iran - which hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, tortures political dissidents, and oppresses Baha'is, Kurds, Christians and Sunnis - will be quick to respond to American kindness and forbearance.