Thursday, 17 January 2013
Mandel And Klein On Obama's Proposed Troika: Kerry, Hagel, Brennan
Kerry, Hagel, Brennan - harmful to Israel

by Morton A. Klein and Dr. Daniel Mandel

President Obama spent his first term pushing from power long-standing Arab allies in Egypt and Tunisia; seeking to engage the now blood-soaked Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad; pulling his punches against Iran's nuclear program; and putting "daylight" between his administration and Israel. Now for his second term, he has nominated for the highest posts bearing on the Middle East three figures who give the strongest indication we can expect much more of the same - John Kerry for State, Chuck Hagel for Defense and John Brennan for the CIA.

Kerry opposed Congress' 2009 hold on appointing an ambassador to a regime which has subverted democracy in Lebanon and which has supported Hezbollah, the terrorist group that, until 9/11, had more American blood on its hands than any other. But that shouldn't surprise - last September, Kerry was one of only 25 senators who refused to urge the European Union to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

A leaked cable shows that, in February 2010, Kerry told the Qataris that he supports Israeli withdrawal from the strategic Golan Heights, eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. In April 2010, Kerry met with Assad and called Syria "an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region." The Washington Post even recently called Kerry a "prominent admirer" of Assad.

Kerry also stands apart from his Senate colleagues in his weakness towards Iran. Last month, he was one of only 26 senators not to urge President Obama to reiterate his readiness to use military force against Iran if other measures fail to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power. In April 2010, he was one of only 19 senators refusing to call for crippling sanctions upon Iran.

In respect to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), Kerry in 2007 was one of only 21 senators not to oppose aid to, and contacts with, P.A. figures who "do not explicitly and unequivocally recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terror and accept previous agreements."

With Defense nominee Chuck Hagel, we fare inarguably worse. In 2008 he was described by a congressional aid as "solely responsible" for blocking an Iran sanctions bill. Like Kerry, he opposed Hezbollah's designation by the EU as a terrorist outfit and favors indulging the P.A.

But Hagel has exceeded Kerry by advocating direct U.S. negotiations with Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group committed in its Charter to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. Before retiring from the Senate, he muttered about "intimidation" by the "Jewish lobby," unsubtly suggesting that venal legislators support Israel to America's detriment because of malign Jewish influence rather than because of U.S. public support.

Which brings us to CIA nominee John Brennan, who refers to Jerusalem as Al-Quds, the Arabic name widely used by those who do not recognize Israel. Like Kerry and Hagel, Brennan whitewashes Hezbollah and wants to appease Iran and Hamas. In 2008 he blamed the bad relations between Iran and the U.S., not on the nature of the Iranian regime and its goals, but at least in large part on what he called "Iran-bashing," which he darkly attributed to Washington's deference to "short-term domestic political interests" - presumably, the Jews who oppose Iran developing nuclear weapons.

In other words, Brennan doesn't see the Iranian regime as a dangerous threat. In fact, he criticized the Bush administration for continuing to pressure Iran.

If Iran and Hamas sound no warning bells for Brennan, neither does radical Islam in general. It was Brennan who in 2009 publicly defended the Obama administration's policy of discarding basic, factual terms like "radical Islam," "Islamism," and "jihad" in reference to the war being waged against America and its allies by Muslim extremists.

With President Obama and his three wise men, who might supervise U.S. foreign defense and intelligence policy towards the Middle East, we can expect more "engagement" with radical Islamic and jihadist movements, several of which have ascended to power during Obama's first term, no deterring of Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold and more "daylight" between Washington and Jerusalem.

Posted on 01/17/2013 4:36 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
18 Jan 2013
Christina McIntosh

A little over twelve years ago, in June 2000, the Irish intellectual and statesman Conor Cruise O'Brien, author of 'The Siege', was interviewed by the 'Middle East Quarterly'.

There are a couple of passages in that interview that make the hair lift on the back of the neck when one revisits them, today.

He stated, 'It's probably true that if, God forbid, relations between the United States and Israel should break down, and Israel no longer had any backing from Washington, all the Arab [that is, the Arab Muslim - CM] states would join in a combination against Israel.

'Fortunately, that hypothesis is quite remote'.

He emphasised that "the Arab world has never accepted the legitimacy of the existence of israel and is not likely to do so."

The Muslim world has never accepted the existence of the Jewish state of Israel and is not likely to do so. - CM

And a bit later on in the interview, MEQ asked:

'Is there a Muslim-Jewish dimension to this problem?'

O'Brien: "Rooted in the political and linguistic realities of the region, Muslims and Jews are not about to be reconciled.  The Arab propaganda against Israel is brutally anti-Judaic.

He knew that in 2000.  If he could know that, then why on earth were so few others willing to know it, and to tell it like it was? - CM

"It includes justifying the Holocaust and circulating again the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - and believing in this admitted forgery".

MEQ - "How much does Israel depend on the United States?

O'Brien, "Very much.  It exists in a kind of symbiosis with the United States. 

'That is one of the reasons why it is not being attacked by Arab neighbours who very much dislike its existence.

"So if that relationship should break down, which is very unlikely, there would again be a serious, terrible threat to the existence of the State of Israel.

"That's a theoretical catastrophic possibility; it doesn't appear to be in any sense imminent". END QUOTES

My emphases.

It is a mark of the man's acuity that he could at least imagine that possibility, and the danger.

Today, a bare twelve years after that interview was published, I doubt anyone would see it as theoretical.  The ummah or mohammedan mob seems perilously close to achieving one of its interim aims; the splitting of Israel from the USA, or more correctly, the USA from Israel.  And the aim is ultimately to destroy both: the world's largest majority-Christian state, and the world's one and only Jewish state.