">

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Boxed in on the Middle East

President Obama’s decision to come out against the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN General Assembly this week might have spelled an end to four-decades of U.S. leadership on Middle East peace. Boxed in by the Palestinians and the surging international support for their cause, Obama is also facing tremendous pressure at home, where presidential-election politics threaten to further drive the United States into isolation in its one-sided support for Israel. Leading the charge is Texas Governor Rick Perry, the Republican presidential candidate who claimed at a press conference earlier in the week that “help is on the way” and that his Christian faith gives him “clear directive to support Israel.” Such faith apparently does not include giving moral support to the Palestinians, whom Perry equated with “orchestrators of terrorism.”

The past week has seen the United States effectively relinquish its role as the key negotiator of Middle East peace as the Palestinians, ignoring President Barack Obama’s entreaties, announced their decision to pursue UN membership and be recognized as an independent state. One of the key reasons for Obama’s failure to bridge the Mideast divide has been domestic politics—the power of U.S. “pro-Israel” factions, encouraged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to threaten the administration’s base if he strays too far from the Israeli line.

This pressure played a key role in forcing the president to walk back his earlier commitments to Palestinian statehood and declare to the UN General Assembly on Wednesday that “statements and resolutions at the UN” will not bring peace to the region. As Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator in the government of Ehud Barak and currently a fellow at the New America Foundation, told the New York Times, “The U.S. cannot lead on an issue that it is so boxed in on by its domestic politics. And therefore, with the region in such rapid upheaval and the two-state solution dying, as long as the U.S. is paralyzed, others are going to step up.”

“Others” did yesterday, in particular, the conservative French President Nikolas Sarkozy, who directly contradicted Obama during his follow up speech at the UN, saying that it was time to “begin negotiations, and adopt a precise timetable” for Palestinian statehood.

At the same time that new forces are emerging to displace the U.S. role in the Middle East, domestic U.S. forces on the right are stepping up their challenges to Obama on Israel, and thereby further isolating both Israel and the United States vis-a-vis the growing international momentum in favor of a Palestinian state. Most notable among these is Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, who during a carefully timed press conference on Tuesday lambasted the administration’s Middle East policies and promised Israelis that “help is on the way.” Sharing a stage with deputy Knesset speaker and World Likud chairman Danny Danon and a bevy of other right-wing figures, the Texas governor also used the opportunity to criticize the president’s efforts to engage regimes in Iran and Syria.

The press conference, which took place a few blocks from where the General Assembly was convening in New York, served to put Obama on notice that any effort to criticize Israel could well cost him at the ballot box. Reiterating his oft-stated view that his Christian faith bestows him a “clear directive to support Israel,” Perry repeatedly criticized Obama’s “policy of appeasement toward the Palestinians.” He went on to call for the ejection of the PLO diplomatic mission from Washington and a halt to U.S. aid for the Palestinian Authority if its leadership continues to pursue statehood—a proposal that not even the Israeli government supports. Although the Texas governor expressed his support for an eventual Palestinian state, he nevertheless called for the continuation of Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, declaring: “It’s their land; it’s their right.” His endorsement of the settlement project would abrogate some four decades of U.S. government policy.

Summing up his support for one-sided U.S. backing of the Israeli government, Perry seemed to suggest that Palestinians were simply less deserving of U.S. concern. "The Obama policy of moral equivalency,” he said, “gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, [which] is a very dangerous insult."

The PLO’s Washington representative, Maen Rashid Areikat—whom Perry would send packing—called Perry’s suggestion “a discriminatory and racist position.”

The conference is Perry’s latest overture in a likely strategy to court the support of Christian Zionists and influential neoconservatives in Washington. Many of his remarks Tuesday echoed similar statements he made in recent op-eds in the Wall Street Journal and the Jerusalem Post, the latter of which Jonathan Tobin, editor of the neoconservative Commentary magazine, called “exemplary,” observing that “if you’re a presidential candidate who wants to lay down a pro-Israel marker, putting your name on an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post as a supporter of the Jewish state will do just as well.”

This was not the first time that Perry has attempted to strut his “pro-Israel” agenda. He previously criticized Obama’s allusion to Israel’s 1967 borders in May and called for the arrest of Gaza Freedom Flotilla activists in June. His courtship of neoconservatives and Bush-era hardliners dates back at least to this summer, when Perry had a closed-door briefing with Douglas Feith, William Luti, and Andrew McCarthy, which was reportedly convened by Donald Rumsfeld.

In a GOP field that was once thought to be marked by “the end of the neocon consensus,” hawkishness on the Middle East has come roaring back from Texas.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share