failed policies Israeli Politics meathead politicians Peace Plans US politics

Deluded Policies of Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisor Daniel Kurtzer Would Spell Disaster For Israel…….

There is a real danger that an Obama administration would impose on Israel, in part, or in its entirety, the fuzzy headed positions espoused by Daniel C. Kurtzer, on how to best solve the conflict between Israelis and the Palestinians. The prospect of such a scenario happening is very real and very dangerous.

At Front Page Mag, Kevin Levin delivers a blistering indictment on Obama’s chief foreign policy advisor, Daniel C. Kurtzer’s, new book, co-authored with Scott B. Lasensky, titled: “Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace”.

According to Levin, the book’s main proposals have nothing new to offer, being rather a rehash of well known failed policies stemming from the Oslo years, as well as emphasizing the US’s squandering of its valuable capital and prestige vis-a-vis the Muslim world, due to the Bush administration’s unwillingness to pressure the Israelis enough, into placating Arab demands.
How Pollyannish can you get?
There is however, a very solid case to be made, that instead of the usual focus on peace deals, it would be wiser to first promote the developement of the rule of law, the protection of minorities, as well as the building of democratic and liberal institutions within the PA itself, and using such developmental aid as a carrot and stick to induce the Palestinians to reform their society.
In order for the “peace process” to even have a chance to begin, the West has to first start treating the Arabs as adults. The Palestinians need to be held accountable for their actions, within the PA itself, and in their relations with Israel. Any steps taken by the PA government that drives them away from their commitments with Israel and the West, will be met with reductions in funding and aid.
Kevin Levin Fisk’s the mindset that very well could be on display within the Oval Office come next January.

“The breathtaking muddy-mindedness of the volume’s assertions regarding the conflict provides yet more grist for the foreign policy establishment’s critics. It also provides more grounds for concern, particularly as Kurtzer and Lasensky’s warped perspective on the path to “peace” and “security” is not offered simply as an academic exercise, nor even as a prediction of how Israeli-Arab relations will likely unfold. Rather, it is presented as a blueprint for definitive positions that the U.S. ought to adopt and, in effect, impose on Israel. The authors assert, for example, “Washington needs to formalize and add permanence to U.S. positions on the core endgame issues of Jerusalem, refugees, security, and territory…”

The authors imply that, in fact, public opinion does impede Arab leaders from drawing closer to the U.S., and that assuaging this hostility by brokering a settlement would serve American interests. They fault past administrations for not paying more attention to the role of domestic opinion in shaping Arab policies. For example, “The Bush 43 administration… tend[ed] to turn a blind eye toward domestic constraints on the Arab side.”

But anti-U.S. opinion in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt stems in no small measure from America’s support for those governments, not simply from American support for Israel. In addition, rabid anti-Israel sentiment is something which Arab governments – both American “allies” and enemies – stoke, not least to distract their populations from domestic ills. Anti-Israel vitriol and anti-Semitic canards are a staple of the media, mosques and schools in virtually every Arab country. This is true even in states with which Israel is formally at peace.

There is no reason to believe that regimes which find promotion of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric so useful are prepared to give it up, even in the context of a “peace” agreement. The authors indirectly acknowledge this when they declare that a settlement would deprive such regimes of their ability to “exploit” the issue. But, of course, there is no way to stop their exploiting the issue. Even if an agreement were reached between Israel and a Palestinian government, those regimes that find demonization of Israel and the Jews useful would simply condemn Israel’s Palestinian partners for betraying the Arab or Muslim cause and continue their anti-Israel propaganda as before.

But, Kurtzer and Lasensky assure their readers, there is currently a “broader regional acceptance of Israel.” They reference Saudi Arabia’s 2002 plan regarding the conflict, and its endorsement by other Arab states, as evidence of this.

One would think that Saudi Arabia’s continued purveying of media, educational and religious materials calling for the mass murder of Jews and annihilation of Israel would give the authors some pause in their bald declaration of Saudi “acceptance” of the Jewish state. Most observers attribute the 2002 Saudi move as prompted by a wish to counter anti-Saudi opinion in the U.S. in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and Saudis accounting for 15 of the 19 perpetrators. In any case, the Saudi initiative insists on Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines and acquiescence to other Palestinian demands as a prelude to Arab states offering a vaguely defined “recognition.”

Remember folks, in Helsinki earlier this month, the head of the Organization of the Islamic Council, Secretary General Ishanuoglu, told the Tundra Tabloids face to face that there is no such thing as Islamic antisemitism.
Sec-Gen Ishanoglu:I am a Muslim, and when I pray, I pray for all prophets including Moses, Jesus and Mohamed. So you cannot speak about any Muslim, good or bad, as anti-Semitic, this is a theory, this is not the case.”


See the mindset we are up against? On both sides? Who, besides a lone blogger like me, is going to take this guy to task for denying the unrefutable existence of Islamic antisemitism? We need Western leaders who are willing and able to hold accountable the “Ishanoglus of our day”, as well as other Muslims who demand more and more from the West, while they expect the West to placate their intolerable demands and warped values.

In an Obama administration with a Daniel C.Kurtzer giving him advice, we will see more of the same failed policies that drove the Clinton administration to back the Oslo non-peace agreement, which was nothing more than a Trojan horse full of terrorists delivered straight to the back yard of Israel.

I say to Obama and his supporters….KEEP THE CHANGE. KGS

3 Responses

  1. So let me get this straight. Dan Kurtzer, a Bush appointee is now an advisor to the O’Bama campaign. Colin Powell, a key member of the 1st Bush Administration is now endorsing Sen. O’Bama. Now Scott McClellen of the Bush Administration is endorsing Sen. O’Bama.

    Sen. O’Bama calls this “change”.

    Uh huh! I get it.

  2. RIGHT!

    As you well know, Obama’s being a political outsider is as mythical as the change his administration will bring to Washington.

  3. AND… It is worth remembering.
    Powell took a hike when things got tough in IRAQ!

    McCain sure could have used the help when HE had to fill Powell’s shoes and Take on the entire U.S. Political structure from the inferior strategic position of “scourned Senator” Snatching VICTORY From the Jaws of Defeat and Saving countless U.S. Lives!

    YET, McCain Succeeded where Powell was incapable, Unwilling, OR incompetent!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *