Netanyahu Outmaneuvers Obama?

[Berkut]

Okay so visiting countries gives you " foreign policy " credit.

Certainly moreso than not visiting countries. What do you think gives someone foreign policy experience?

Unless you are Obama, then its just vacation.

Did Obama visit lots of other countries on vacation? Meet with leaders, show a depth of knowledge about their politics?

Give me a break Berkut. You'll do anything to build this guy up. He didn't win because he is infinitely less experienced and qualified than Obama to do the job.

Right.

McCain would have gotten bitch slapped in every foreign policy decision he made. It would have been an angry old man wagging his cane at the younger passerbys leaving trash on his lawn. What a joke of a politician that man is.

Well, it is clear you are thinking objectively and rationally, as always FB.

[Queequeg]

You can use your sex sheets! 

Is this some reference to a story I don't remember telling? 

[Eddie Teach]

You can use your sex sheets! 

Is this some reference to a story I don't remember telling?

It's a reference to your Mormonism. 

[Queequeg]

What do you think gives someone foreign policy experience?

To be totally honest, the ability to think in non-emotional (read borderline to totally amoral) terms is very important.  It is the difference between Bismarck and Wilhelm II.  I'd put McCain down as Wilhelm.  I also think that common sense is pretty damn important; Biden has some foreign policy credentials, but as far as I can tell he's been totally wrong on just about everything he's suggested since 9/11.

Meet with leaders, show a depth of knowledge about their politics?

Obama probably knows more about the Muslim world than I do.  Or Minsky.  He's lived there.  He has studied the area in the run up to becoming President, too.  McCain, on the other hand, is basically a Cold Warrior and can't seem to stop thinking in 1963 terms even when it is Shaakash doing stupid shit. 

[Queequeg]

It's a reference to your Mormonism. 

Never worn them, never will, and I'm going to drink a beer right now just to prove you wrong. 

[Berkut]

What do you think gives someone foreign policy experience?

To be totally honest, the ability to think in non-emotional (read borderline to totally amoral) terms is very important.  It is the difference between Bismarck and Wilhelm II.  I'd put McCain down as Wilhelm.  I also think that common sense is pretty damn important; Biden has some foreign policy credentials, but as far as I can tell he's been totally wrong on just about everything he's suggested since 9/11.

Meet with leaders, show a depth of knowledge about their politics?

Obama probably knows more about the Muslim world than I do.  Or Minsky.  He's lived there.  He has studied the area in the run up to becoming President, too.  McCain, on the other hand, is basically a Cold Warrior and can't seem to stop thinking in 1963 terms even when it is Shaakash doing stupid shit. 

SO you evaluation is pretty much completely based on your views of the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Makes sense then that you think his FP would suck.

But that doesn't mean he lacks FP experience or credibility - just means you don't agree with him.

"Studying" and area is fine - but it doesn't really count as FP credibility. McCain has certainly studied the area, and visited the area, and dealt with their leadership, etc., etc. etc.

If you are going to argue that McCain lacks FP cred, then you have to argue that it isn't even possible to get FP cred as a US senator, because McCain has spent 30 years as a US senator focusing largely on FP.

There isn't even any point in comparing him to Obama, as a candidate. Obama spent 6 years in the Senate studiously avoiding any kind of foreign policy work. There is simply no comparison. Even if Obama spent his 6 years trying to focus on FP to the exclusion of domestic policy, he still could not possibly match what McCain did over 30 years.

[Queequeg]

If you are going to argue that McCain lacks FP cred, then you have to argue that it isn't even possible to get FP cred as a US senator, because McCain has spent 30 years as a US senator focusing largely on FP.

In Republican Rome, Senators were expected to command armies and deal-in person-with kings and chieftains, and to fight as equestrians. 

This isn't Ancient Rome.  This is the United States Senate, whose primary purpose for the last 30 years has been to make government reform so difficult as to make governing this country a fantastically arduous task. 

I don't think McCain had the right temperament to become a great leader in terms of American foreign policy, at least at the moment.  We are vastly over extended and need a militaristic maverick like we need a nuclear terrorist attack.   

[Fate]

Madame Sarah Palin has foreign policy experience.

[Admiral Yi]

You think better than that Yi.  You aren't Berkut.

Since you haven't picked up on it, I'm being facetious.  Didn't think your rant about McCain and Georgia was worthy of a serious response.

[Alatriste]

Europeans have trouble with the link between the armed services and foreign policy.  They don't appreciate how strong the link is in the US.

Actually over here there would be a ruckus if the Defense Committee tried to meddle in foreign policy (although Defense ministers have been known to interfere on occasions with their Foreign Affairs colleagues).

In fact our Foreign Affairs ministers more often than not belong to the diplomatic service, it's seen as a very demanding and politically 'neutral' field, better left to professionals. That politicians generally suck at speaking foreign languages certainly helps too!

[Neil]

What do you think gives someone foreign policy experience?

To be totally honest, the ability to think in non-emotional (read borderline to totally amoral) terms is very important.  It is the difference between Bismarck and Wilhelm II.  I'd put McCain down as Wilhelm.  I also think that common sense is pretty damn important; Biden has some foreign policy credentials, but as far as I can tell he's been totally wrong on just about everything he's suggested since 9/11.

Experience and aptitude are not the same.  Besides, nothing that Biden or McCain could have done could possibly as big a failure as Obama's policies have been.

Meet with leaders, show a depth of knowledge about their politics?

Obama probably knows more about the Muslim world than I do.  Or Minsky.  He's lived there.  He has studied the area in the run up to becoming President, too.  McCain, on the other hand, is basically a Cold Warrior and can't seem to stop thinking in 1963 terms even when it is Shaakash doing stupid shit.

And that is why Obama fails.  He's gone native.

[Neil]

In fact our Foreign Affairs ministers more often than not belong to the diplomatic service, it's seen as a very demanding and politically 'neutral' field, better left to professionals. That politicians generally suck at speaking foreign languages certainly helps too!

Odd.  Over here, Foreign Affairs is usually the #3 job in the cabinet, sometimes #2 depending on the time period.  No civil service wonk would ever get such a lofty position, and foreign languages are not important to the job, since Canada is an English-speaking country.

[Jos Theelen]

This article does point out the obvious fact that for a US president trying to influence Israel's behavior the levers are not that easy to pull.  My guess is (anyone know for sure?) some or all of the $3 billion a year in aid is tied to the Camp David treaty.

It had no conditions. It was part of a bigger package (20 bln to Saudi-Arabia and 13 bln to Egypt), meant to keep peace in the region, to keep their ally the strongest in the region, bla bla bla. I doubt these kind of gifts to Israel will have conditions. Far too risky, because Israel is doing what Israel wants. Obama knows that now too.

[Savonarola]

More from Al-J

Netanyahu's 'yes we can' moment 



By Rime Allaf


Obama (centre) hosted talks in September with Netanyahu (left) and Abbas in New York [EPA]


Big speeches with grand accompanying events marking an 'umpteenth' rekindling of the strangest and longest peace process have been Middle East fixtures for decades, as have the inevitable follow-up periods of analyses and projections.

No matter where the leaders in question stood on the scale of left to right, or to which party they belonged, little new ever emerged; peace talks had fallen into a vicious cycle of deja vu.

Not this time, however.

If only to recall the US president's motto of change, and his rallying cry of "yes we can", credit must be given where credit is due: Obama has accomplished what no other US president before him managed to do. 

Despite Israel's refusal to comply with his demand to freeze settlement expansion - which amounted to a political slap in the face - Obama still hosted a meeting between the Israeli prime minister and the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA).

And he announced, in all seriousness, that "permanent status negotiations must begin, and begin soon".

Obama 'humiliated'



For many observers, it beggars belief that the most powerful country in the world could be scorned in this manner by a much smaller one.

Israel itself has depended on US political patronage and financial aid to defy dozens of UN Security Council resolutions and the will of the vast majority of the real international community. 

So early in his mandate, having been publicly humiliated by Israel, Obama backtracked and allowed its arrogance to reach new highs.

Having set a precedent, and seemingly gotten away with it, Israel is now unlikely to be pressured - let alone forced - to comply with the will of the international community on any issue.

Indeed, Israel can claim that there is change under Obama, as it now can confidently say "yes we can" as non-diplomatically and defiantly as it wishes.

It may have been unrealistic to expect the US president to be more regal than Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the PA, when the man supposedly defending Palestinian interests - albeit without a legitimate mandate - has ignored Israel's transgressions. 

If Abbas can overlook them and meet with Netanyahu while Gaza continues to starve under siege, why shouldn't Obama?

Unfortunately, the entire fiasco was predictable, following the complete failure of the president's special envoy, George Mitchell, to achieve anything during several months of selective diplomacy.

For all the contrived hype surrounding Obama's hesitant engagement, the so-called high stakes were nothing more than a partial freeze of Israeli settlements for a limited period – hardly ground-breaking measures.

This unprecedented psychological victory, relieving Netanyahu of having to pretend he would abide by US wishes, has turned the Israeli prime minister's audacity into insolence.

Gaza war

"Israel can now claim that there is change under Obama, as it now can confidently say "yes we can" as non-diplomatically and defiantly as it wishes"

In fact, Israel seems to have become so accustomed to getting its own way that Netanyahu's indignation may not have even been feigned as he admonished the United Nations for daring to protest Israel's actions in Gaza.

It is disturbing to recall that this prime minister was elected because the proponents of the Gaza war earlier in the year weren't considered brutal enough by Israeli voters.

While 94 per cent of Israelis supported the government's attack on Gaza in January this year, they clearly did not not feel that enough had been done.

Netanyahu's defiance of the US and, in particular, of Obama is not going to be unpopular.

The media's attention may have been captured by Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, who many consider to be openly racist and xenophobic, but even he is small fry compared to the real loose bull in Israel - Netanyahu. 

In only a few days, he not only ensured Obama retract the demand for a settlement freeze demand and warned the world and the UN Human Rights Committee about criticising Israel, but he also turned the attention away from Gaza and on to Iran.

These developments augur very grim prospects for the future of the region, and the time may have come to drop the pretence and not bother sending Mitchell on yet another pointless trip. 

Israeli 'intransigence'


If the Obama administration was serious about its involvement, it would find the will, and the way, to make Israel get out of the land it illegally occupied and force it to recognise Palestine's right to exist.

It has become more imperative in the face of Israel's growing intransigence to impose such a solution.

For the time being, however, the US doesn't seem to have reached this conclusion and continues to pander to Israeli demands at the expense of Palestinians and the Arab world at large.

The White House and the State Department, disappointingly, have relaunched their drive for "normalisation" and increased the pressure on Arabs to make "tangible and credible goodwill gestures" toward Israel. 

Instead of pressuring those they should, they are pushing those they can. 

If Mitchell goes back to the Middle East, it is hard to imagine he would have any mission other than putting the onus, once again, on the victims - thereby forcing the Arabs to "normalise" with Israel in return for nothing.

That might buy the US and Israel time, but it will never bring peace.

I like how Abbas always looks so gloomy in these pictures.  He reminds me of Eeyore.

[The Minsky Moment]

I like how Abbas always looks so gloomy in these pictures.  He reminds me of Eeyore.

Who's the guy taking a standing up dump in the background?