Benjamin Netanyahu is basically a fascist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Either that or he's just really good at impersonating one, but the implications are pretty much the same regardless. And with his electoral career on the verge of coming to a screeching halt, with voters possibly about to turf him out of office, he's proving it once more, in extremis:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that if he were to be reelected, a Palestinian state would not be created, in a definite disavowal of his 2009 speech, in which he had voiced support for the principle of two states for two peoples.

Netanyahu's remarks in an interview with the NRG website -- which is owned by casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and tied with the settler newspaper Makor Rishon -- were a last-minute attempt to pull right-wing voters away from Habayit Hayehudi.

"I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel," Netanyahu said. "The left has buried its head in the sand time and after time and ignores this, but we are realistic and understand." 

Oh, what a pile of horseshit. Creating a Palestinian state would basically mean caving in to ISIS or al Qaeda or whatever? Seriously. Nonsense. I would say the reverse is true. Creating a Palestinian state would encourage the rapid development of more moderate forms of political Islam. It would show the Muslim world that Israel, the United States, and others are serious about solving the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be the ultimate expression of respect, the ultimate olive branch.

I have said this many times before and I'll say it again now: I'm pro-Israel. But what that means for me is that I'm also pro-Palestine. Indeed, it's because I'm pro-Israel that I'm anti-Netanyahu, anti the Israeli right generally (and anti Israel's right-wing supporters in the U.S., like Adelson, the neocons, and the #47Traitors). The fact is, for the sake of Israel's present and future security and prosperity, it is essential that there be peace, that there be an accord between Israel and moderate elements in the Muslim Middle East. That can't and won't happen with Netanyahu and the right in control in Israel.

I realize that Netanyahu is desperate, and that he's doing what he thinks he needs to do to hold onto power. Faced with such desperation, politicians do and say stupid things. But this isn't just that. This isn't just desperation. This is the real Netanyahu, a man who doesn't want peace because he doesn't believe in peace, a man who doesn't want what is ultimately in Israel's own best interests, a man who is actually a threat to Israel's present and future security and prosperity.

And it's time to kick him to the electoral curb for good. Hopefully the people of Israel have had their fill of him.

Behind the Ad: Chuck Norris stumps for Bibi Netanyahu (no kidding)

By Richard K. Barry

I have no idea if this sort of thing will help, but the man from "Walker Texas Rangers," Mr. Chuck Norris, appeared in a YouTube video on Monday for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

It appears that Mr. Netanyahu's reelection is anything but certain, so I guess some degree of creativity is called for.

Gotta love the directness of the ad, which is entitled "Please vote for Prime Minister Netanyahu!"

 TPM describes the piece:

“I watched Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, and I saw a man who loves his country with all his heart and soul," Norris said in the video.

The actor and martial arts enthusiast stressed that only Netanyahu's Likud Party could bring Israel peace and security.

“I have done three movies in Israel, Delta Force being my favourite, and I formed many friendships while there," he went on. "You have an incredible country, and we want to keep it that way.”

TPM also writes that over the past few days "Netanyahu has made a last-minute appeal to right-wing voters in Israel as centre-left parties nudged ahead of Likud in the polls."

Norris said that Americans needed a leader like Netayanhu just as much as Israelis, in order to ward off "evil forces" in the Middle East and throughout the world.

Can't help wondering if a bad American actor pontificating about Israeli politics could possibly have an impact of any sort. Maybe someone could enlighten me. 

White Jesus, White Santa: Megyn Kelly nominates herself for title of stupidest person in the world

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, she went there, exposing herself as an ignoramus and, it would seem, a bigot:

On Wednesday night Megyn Kelly declared on her Fox News show that both Santa Claus and Jesus were white. Discussing a piece in Slate by Aisha Harris about a black versus white Santa, Kelly that "just because it makes you feel uncomfortable it doesn't mean it has to change." 

"You know, I've given her her due. Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it has to change," Kelly said. "Jesus was a white man, too. It's like we have, he's a historical figure that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa, I just want kids to know that. How do you revise it in the middle of the legacy in the story and change Santa from white to black?"

Um... no:

Santa Claus can be traced to a real life monk named St. Nicholas who lived in what is today Turkey, according to the History Channel. Jesus Christ was born to a Jewish family around what is now Israel, and his race has long been debated with several scholars saying he likely looked like what many modern day people of Middle Eastern descent look like.

Exactly.

I get that there may be some confusion about Santa Claus, given that he's basically a Dutch cartoon character, but Jesus? Come on. Insofar as he was a real person, the guy was from Judea, basically the present-day West Bank. You know, because that's where Bethlehem is, and he was supposedly born in a manger there. I think the whole "Christ" story is bullshit, but who the hell doesn't know the story of Jesus's birth? Surely "God"-fearing Megyn does.

And, you know, people from that part of the world aren't "white," unless you stupidly think "white" is anything, oh, non-black. But maybe "fact"-based Megyn thinks just that. Or maybe thinks Jesus is the cartoon character of the right-wing Christian imagination.

Whatever the case, she's a fucking moron.

John Kerry, peacemaker?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, this is something:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators would convene again in the Middle East within two weeks and that their goal would be to work out a comprehensive peace agreement within nine months that would lead to an independent Palestinian state. 

"The parties have agreed to remain engaged in sustained, continuous and substantive negotiations on the core issues," Mr. Kerry said at the State Department, flanked by Tzipi Livni, Israel's justice minister, and Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator.

"Our objective will be to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine months," Mr. Kerry said. "We all understand the goal that we're working towards: two states living side by side in peace and security."

It's good to see the U.S. again assuming a productive leadership role with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, something that only seems to happen when a Democrat is in the White House, but a meaningful agreement on a two-state solution, however desirable, seems less likely than Kate giving birth to another undeserving "royal" in nine months.

Nonetheless, if Kerry pulls it off, the Nobel is his, deservedly so, and all of us who thought he was a fantastic pick to be secretary of state, perhaps better even than Hillary, and thought he would have been a similarly fantastic president, will be proven right.

World leaders should tape this to their walls

By Carl

A Haaretz op-ed opines that Israel should follow Nelson Mandela's lead in trying to come to grips with the Palestinian question:

The first and clearest lesson one can learn from Mandela is that peace is only achievable if the putative peacemakers believe in it. "One cannot be prepared for something while secretly believing it will not happen," Mandela once said. Does Israel's current leadership truly believe in peace? Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett are on record as saying that they don't. Netanyahu maintains that he does, though I can't help looking for the fingers crossed behind his back whenever he says it.

Peace is both an abstract concept – "a winner is a dreamer who never gives up," according to Mandela – and a very finite calculation of profit and loss. Peace means making compromises – and Mandela came perilously close to losing his base of support among South Africa's blacks in compromising to the extent that he did. He was prepared to take significant risks in the interest of peace. Are Israel's leaders prepared to do likewise?

Mandela was able to take risks and make compromises because he believed in what he was doing and he had a clear vision of the South Africa that could emerge. Addressing the court at the conclusion of his trial for treason in 1964, he said: "I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

And there it is: one has to wonder what the Israeli leadership really wants. Hegemony? Over a billion Muslims, most of whom could care less whether Israel lives or dies, and a minority of whom want to destroy that nation?

Mandela did take risks, but then he was willing to lose it all, even after his release from prison, even after his ascendancy to president. He had courage, which Mandela defines as not the absence of fear but the strength to overcome it. It seems odd to me that a nation whose people have courage in boatloads can't bring themselves to use that courage to create a niche for themselves that doesn't involve the constant vigilance of armed forces.

Read more »

Craziest Republican of the Day: E.W. Jackson

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Virginia may be turning blue, but its Republican Party -- the party of Gov. Bob McDonnell and Lt. Gov. Ken Cuccinelli -- is getting redder and redder.

And crazier and crazier, perhaps because it knows deep down that it's losing the state.

You'll recall that McDonnell, among other things, reinstituted state discrimination against gays and lesbians as well as Confederate History Month in Virginia, while Cuccinelli, who is now running for governor, worries about exposed boobs and blow jobs and otherwise pushed an even more extremist agenda.

Well, apparently that's not crazy enough for Virginia Republicans, who yesterday nominated E.W. Jackson, a far-right minister, to be Cuccinelli's successor. And just how crazy is Jackson?

Jackson also maintained a now defunct blog on his site, where he argued in one post that President Obama saw the world "from a Muslim perspective."

Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world...

Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentorship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies.

Um, what?

Read more »

Hooray for Hagel?

By Frank Moraes 

I think it is time again to discuss Chuck Hagel. I've been reasonably positive about Obama's nomination of Hagel for Secretary of Defense. My main problem is just that I don't like the optics of it: Republican presidents always have Republicans at this post, but this will be Obama's second of three who are Republicans. As Michael has asked, "Is no Democrat good enough?"

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that is the wrong question. The Secretary of Defense is nominated by the president you have, not the president you wish you had. This is who Obama is: a man dedicated to seeming more reasonable than anyone else. It is actually, one of his least admirable qualities. It speaks of a man who cares more about appearances than accomplishments. But I don't doubt that this is who he is. From the start I thought he was a man with very centrist beliefs. If it were 40 years ago, he would certainly be a Republican.

By far, the best argument that I've heard in favor of Hagel comes from committed discontent Eric Alterman in "Hooray for Hagel." I am in agreement with him. There is nothing that makes me want Hagel confirmed as much as the neoconservative push against him. The idea that Hagel will not be a lackey of Israel and won't push for war with Iran makes him perhaps more compelling than most Democrats.

Read more »

Why does PSY hate us?

By Frank Moraes

I don't read Glenn Greenwald every day, I quote Glenn Greenwald every day. He is a great writer who really gets to the core of political issues in a way that is rare indeed. Yesterday, he asked a question, "Which of these two stories is causing more controversy and outrage in the US?" And then he offered two quotes. The first was from the New York Daily News about anti-American lyrics written by Korean rapper PSY. The second was from The Guardian about American troops in Afghanistan targeting children with "hostile intent." His point that there is an uproar about the lyrics and silence about killing children in a foreign land.

His broader point is that Americans accept this myth that our government just goes around minding its own business and then people attack us for no reason at all! Now, Greenwald is not making the case that America is evil and we deserve to be attacked. Rather it is that these attacks don't come out of a vacuum. And until we grow up as a people and understand that, there will be ever more people angry at our policies of, for example, targeting Islamic children with our military.

Read more »

Obama achieves ceasefire in Gaza; Republicans still complain

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ThinkProgress:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Egyptian [Foreign] Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr today announced a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, ending eight days of violence that resulted in nearly 150 dead and more wounded. President Obama dispatched Clinton to the region yesterday and the nation's top diplomat traveled to Jerusalem and Cairo today to help facilitate the deal. 

But in a statement on the Gaza ceasefire today, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) — one day after intelligence officials debunked their attacks on the Obama administration over Benghazi — didn't have any kind words for the president and his team. In fact, the new "Three Amigos" attacked Obama, saying there needs to be "smarter American leadership" in the Middle East. 

Yes, why the hell won't he launch an attack on Iran?! Who the hell does he think he is?!

These clowns are so partisan and so desperate that they can't even give credit where credit is due if it involves the president.

Their interests are their own, not the country's, and with the world looking to the U.S. for leadership (and getting it) in the middle of a bloody powder keg, and with peace a tenuous hope but now, thanks to that leadership, a serious possibility, their comments aren't just stupid, they're foolish, counter-productive, and downright dangerous.

This is a time when unity behind the president, along with the presentation of such unity to the world and especially to the various elements in the Middle East, would go a long way towards resolving this crisis. But that's obviously too much to ask of Republicans these days.

Niall Ferguson says Obama wants war

By Frank Moraes

I have long thought that Niall Ferguson was an idiot, but I think that may be the wrong way to think about him. Ferguson is just evil.

I understand being partisan. I certainly am. But to be only partisan is to be only interested in power. Yesterday, Ferguson has wrote an article over at The Daily Beast called "Niall Ferguson on Obama's Possible Mideast Surprise." His argument is that Obama is down in the polls and that he will try some kind of "October Surprise," or a "Wag the Dog" move.

Let's just step back from this for a moment. In what universe is Obama losing in the polls? In the conservative media bubble, of course! In the real world, the national polls show Romney very slightly ahead of Obama. But more important, the national polls mean absolutely, positively nothing. We elect presidents based upon the electoral college, and in that contest, President Obama is and has been the likely winner for months.

In an attempt to mollify conservatives, their own personal alternative media are providing lots of articles to sooth them so they won't fall into a funk and end up missing the election. Typical of this is Jay Cost at The Weekly Standard who claims that Romney is doing really well with the "independent" voters and this will prove decisive. You know what I think of this kind of wishful thinking: it is more wishful than thinking. But this kind of thinking is all over. Brendan Nyhan at the Columbia Journalism Review writes about this in "The momentum behind a misleading narrative." Basically, Romney gained in the week before and the week after the first debate. And that's it. There is no miracle on the horizon.

But Niall Ferguson thinks there is and he thinks that the Obama campaign thinks the same thing. What will they do? Don't worry: Ferguson has a thought. Obama will tell Israel to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. This makes sense from a Republican standpoint: it is just the way they roll; since they will do anything for power, everyone else must act the same way. But with a clear-eyed view of the real world this is nonsense. Would the president really start a war just to win re-election? A democratic president, that is? And if he did, would the people really believe that it wasn't an act of political desperation? After all, why not wait another week and do it after the election? And who, other than wackjob conservatives like Ferguson, wants a war with Iran? It is a ridiculous idea: Obama weighing his choices, "Should I work on getting out the vote or just start a war with Iran? It's such a tough choice!"

Ferguson isn't calling for war explicitly, of course. He is calling for Israeli strikes on Iran's alleged nuclear laboratories. But this is the same as calling for war. This is, in fact, an act of war. And having Israel start it would not make it any less our war.

Hopefully with Newsweek breaking away from The Daily Beast I won't have to read Ferguson again. But I fear I am being far more wishful than even the conservative poll watchers.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Mindless bluster: Mitt Romney's failure of a foreign policy speech

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute yesterday and, predicably, it revealed him once more to be not just devoid of actual ideas and policies but dangerously ignorant with respect to international affairs and America's role and responsibilities on the global stage. As the Times wrote:

In a speech he gave at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. Romney declared that "hope is not a strategy" for dealing with the rise of Islamist governments in the Middle East or an Iran racing toward the capability to build a nuclear weapon, according to excerpts released by his campaign.

The essence of Mr. Romney's argument is that he would take the United States back to an earlier era, one that would result, as his young foreign policy director, Alex Wong, told reporters on Sunday, in "the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years."

But beyond his critique of Mr. Obama as failing to project American strength abroad, Mr. Romney has yet to fill in many of the details of how he would conduct policy toward the rest of the world, or to resolve deep ideological rifts within the Republican Party and his own foreign policy team. It is a disparate and politely fractious team of advisers that includes warring tribes of neoconservatives, traditional strong-defense conservatives and a band of self-described "realists" who believe there are limits to the degree the United States can impose its will. 

Consider that line from his advisor: "the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years." What strategy? The U.S. benefitted from the combination of massive economic expansion and the decline of Europe's imperial powers -- and then found itself embroiled in the Cold War. So what? Containment? Military build-up to the point of mutual assured destruction? And even if you think that there was a strategy that worked well for so long, how is what worked then supposed to be the right strategy now? Has nothing changed? Is the world now the same as it was then?

Stupid. Ignorant. Dangerous.

And just what you'd expect from the Romney campaign -- and from Romney himself:

[W]hile the theme Mr. Romney hit the hardest in his speech at V.M.I. — that the Obama era has been one marked by "weakness" and the abandonment of allies — has political appeal, the specific descriptions of what Mr. Romney would do, on issues like drawing red lines for Iran's nuclear program and threatening to cut off military aid to difficult allies like Pakistan or Egypt if they veer away from American interests, sound at times quite close to Mr. Obama's approach.

And the speech appeared to glide past positions Mr. Romney himself took more than a year ago, when he voiced opposition to expanding the intervention in Libya to hunt down Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with what he termed insufficient resources. He called it "mission creep and mission muddle," though within months Mr. Qaddafi was gone. And last spring, Mr. Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was "just no way" a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work.

Which is to say, Romney was, once more, being dishonest, both about the president's policies and about his own views.

There hasn't been "weakness" at all, rather a mature and nuanced approach to foreign policy, along with a genuine understanding of the issues that shape global politics, that includes both diplomacy and military power, and indeed, far from abandoning America's allies (code for Israel) President Obama has restored America's credibility and standing in the world, a Herculean task given what was handed to him when he took office.

Romney apparently prefers the mindless swagger and bluster personified by George W. Bush, but, then again, it's not clear what he really thinks about anything. He apparently wants the U.S. to act like a global bully, pushing its weight around and subjecting everyone else to its authority, but of course that's both ridiculous and impossible. Otherwise, he changes his positions on anything and everything in accordance with the political winds. His VMI speech was just more of the same, baseless assaults on President Obama while saying what he thinks will win votes and avoiding specifics when it comes to what he would do as president.

And the consensus, outside of partisan Republican and ideologically conservative circles, was that the speech was largely a failure:

New York Times: "Mr. Romney's stated policies in today's speech, just as they have been in the past, are either pretty much like Mr. Obama's or, when there are hints of differences, would pull the United States in wrong and even dangerous directions... Americans deserve an intensive, textured and honest discussion on foreign policy. They did not get it on Monday."

 

Time: "Mitt Romney delivered a 'major' speech on foreign policy on Monday, although that designation of import comes from Romney's own campaign, and hardly seems warranted."

 

National Journal: "For the most part, however, Romney spoke of 'reaffirming' and 'recommitting' to policies that are already in place."

 

Politico: "'There's absolutely nothing in this speech. This is a repackaging of language that has been a staple of Romney's campaign since he threw his hat in the ring,' said James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations. 'If Romney has a foreign policy strategy, he still has not told us what it is. The governor is very fond of saying hope is not a strategy, but that cuts both ways. He didn't answer two key questions: what he would do differently and why we should expect what he would to work.'"

Reuters: ANALYSIS-Romney spares details as he hits Obama on foreign policy

New York Times editorial: In Search of Answers From Mitt Romney

Time: Romney's Not-So-'Major' Foreign Policy Address Casts Obama as Weak
Associated Press: FACT CHECK: A one-sided story on trade, defense

Politico: Experts pan Romney foreign policy speech

National Journal: Romney's Foreign Policies Sound a Lot Like Obama's

CBS: What does Mitt Romney believe on foreign policy?

Los Angeles Times: Madeleine Albright finds Romney's foreign policy speech 'confusing'

Washington Post: Obama campaign dismisses Romney speech as 'chest-pounding rhetoric'
Wall Street Journal: Albright Says Romney Speech Full of 'Platitudes'

Politico: Obama camp blasts Romney foreign policy speech as 'Etch a Sketch' moment

Daily Beast: What Mitt Got Wrong in His Foreign-Policy Speech

Romney campaign distorts Obama's Israel comments, says Romney would let Israel dictate U.S. policy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here we go. Another day, another example of Romney trying to score political points, an increasingly desperate effort at this point, by taking something President Obama said out of context and distorting its meaning.

Here's Obama on 60 Minutes, in response to a question about whether he feels any pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to change American policy towards Iran:

When it comes to our national security decisions any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people, and I am going to block out any noise that's out there.

The Romney campaign pounced, perhaps hoping to scare up some votes in Florida, issuing the following statement:

Tonight on 60 Minutes, President Obama called Israel's legitimate concern about the impact of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons "noise" and referred to Israel as merely "one of our closest allies in the region."

The statement continued:

This is just the latest evidence of his chronic disregard for the security of our closest ally in the Middle East. Governor Romney's views stand in sharp contrast to the President's. Governor Romney strongly believes that Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East and that support for Israel is essential to extending freedom, peace and democracy throughout the region. As president, Governor Romney will restore and protect the close alliance between our nation and the state of Israel.

But did Obama actually disrespect Israel? Hardly. Here's what he said:

Now I feel an obligation -- not pressure but obligation -- to make sure that we're in close consultation with the Israelis on these issues because it affects them deeply. They're one of our closest allies in the region and we've got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel's existence.

So it all hinges on the "one of our closest allies in the region" line. The Romney campaign is riffing off that to suggest that Obama disrespects Israel and disregards its concerns. Which is ridiculous.

There are certainly other U.S. allies in the region, like Jordan and Turkey, and the president was right to say what he said.

But of course it is de rigueur throughout American politics, but particularly among conservatives, not just to express one's support for Israel but essentially to acquiesce to its demands, to kowtow before it, to shape U.S. policy according to Israeli policy (at least if Israeli policy is Likudnik).

Obama is nothing if not pro-Israel, but of course he's not pro-Israel enough for the hardliners on the right, including in Romney's campaign, including Romney himself.

Romney wants to try to twist Obama's words around for his own benefit, but let's look at it another way:

Where the president wants to make decisions that are in America's best interests, free from outside influence or pressure, Romney wants to sell out American policy to a foreign country -- and if that means going to war with Iran because that country wants it, so be it.

Which is to say, President Obama understands that Israel is a close ally that needs U.S. support but that the U.S. must come first. Romney, meanwhile, seems to think that what matters is what Israel, and specifically the right-wing Israeli government, wants, and that the U.S. must not come before it.

And this was hardly the first time. Last October, for example, he said he would let Israel dictate U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Why does Mitt Romney continue to insist on making America a pitiful sidekick on the world stage?

Why does he not believe in America, and in American leadership?

Mitt Romney's ignorant, far-right views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Trashing 47% of the American people wasn't the only thing Mitt Romney did at that $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Boca Raton on May 17.

As David Corn of Mother Jones reports, he also expressed his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, asserting that "the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. He added:

And I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently.

And: "The idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world."

As Corn notes, these views conflict with his own party's platform, which stresses the desire for a two-state solution. And Romney himself has said that he supports a two-state solution, including in July: "I believe in a two-state solution which suggests there will be two states, including a Jewish state."


Once more, then, we see Romney the two-faced opportunist saying two different things, and taking two very different positions, in front of two different audiences. As Corn writes: "Romney's remarks to these funders -- this was one of his longest answers at the fundraiser -- suggest he might be hiding his true beliefs regarding Israel and the peace process and that on this subject he is out of sync with the predominant view in foreign policy circles that has existed for decades."

Now, Romney ought to be asked -- and perhaps he will be, at one of the upcoming debates -- about his views on this matter. There is a blatant self-contradiction here, perhaps a strategic one involving lying to voters, and he ought to be required to answer for it.

But let's say his views are indeed those he expressed at the fundraiser. Well, then, he's an extremist, much further to the right on this issue, and on foreign policy generally, than he would have us, and voters generally, believe. Because when you're even further to the right than the Republican Party's platform, well, that puts you pretty far out there on the right. And on this matter it aligns you with a subset of the most extreme neocons and against the broad consensus that has developed, even with ongoing disagreements over the details.

Furthermore, it suggests to me that he would do nothing as president to provide the sort of leadership that is needed to resolve this decades-long crisis. Okay, he wouldn't push for war, and his remarks do show a sense of moderation and humility, but he also seems to have given up on peace, embracing the pro-Israeli status quo that most sensible people realize is simply untenable, not to mention unjust.

And it's not at all like China and Taiwan, because Taiwan, whatever the mainland might like to think, is an independent and sovereign nation and is treated as such by the international community. Indeed, Mitt the foreign policy ignoramus may not know this, but the U.S. has actually supported Taiwan all along, including militarily, and of course supported the Taiwanese and their independence against the Communists on the mainland. Such has certainly not been the case with the Palestinians. Not even close.

I know I'm repeating myself, but more and more we're seeing that Romney is unprepared, unqualified, and unfit to be president. He insulted the Palestinians and revealed his astonishing ignorance during his trip to Israel, and this is really just more of the same.

Nicholas Kristof on Romney, foreign policy "empty shell"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In over his head. Way, way, way over his head.

From yesterday's Times:

DIPLOMACY is a minefield, and Mitt Romney spent the last week blowing up his foreign policy credentials to be president. He raised doubts about his capacity to deal with global crises, and we were left hoping that if that 3 a.m. call ever went to him, he'd have set up call forwarding.

A great line. But of course this is serious:

The essential problem is that every time Romney touches foreign policy, he breaks things.

And not just by embarrassing himself in England:

The Republican Party is caught in a civil war on foreign policy, and Romney refuses to pick sides. In contrast to his approach on the economy, he just doesn’t seem to have thought much about global issues. My hunch is that for secretary of state he would pick a steady hand, like Robert Zoellick, but Romney has also surrounded himself with volatile neocons.

With China, Romney seems intent on a trade war. In the Middle East, it appears he’d like to subcontract foreign policy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

And it gets worse:

Most dangerous of all is Romney's policy on Iran, which can't be dismissed as an offhand misstatement. As my colleagues David E. Sanger and Ashley Parker note, Romney muddles his own position on his nuclear red line for Iran. Plenty of candidates don't write their own foreign policy position papers, but Romney is unusual in that he seems not to have even read his.

According to clarifications from Romney's campaign, he apparently would order a military strike before Iran even acquired a bomb, simply when it was getting close. For anyone who has actually seen a battlefield, that's a blithe, too-light embrace of a path to yet another war. It's emblematic of a candidate who, on foreign policy, appears an empty shell.

I repeat the narrative that has emerged regarding Romney's quest for the presidency:

UNQUALIFIED.

UNPREPARED.

UNFIT.

October surprise, anyone?

By Carl 

I don't think this is what Obama had planned to lay in front of Mitt Romney, but I'm thinking he'll accept the gift graciously.

Two items: 

1) Chris Stevens, U.S. ambassador to Libya, killed in Benghazi attack 

The US ambassador in Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack after the diplomat's car was targeted in the eastern city of Benghazi, it was confirmed on Wednesday. 

A statement from President Obama "condemned the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including ambassador Chris Stevens"... 

The assault followed a protest in neighbouring Egypt where demonstrates scaled the walls of the US embassy, tore down the US flag, and burned it during a protest over the same film which they said insulted the prophet Muhammad.

2) Obama Calls Netanyahu on Iran Nuclear Threat Amid Tensions

The two leaders spoke by phone last night for an hour, the White House said. While providing no further details, the White House said in a statement that Obama and Netanyahu "reaffirmed that they are united in their determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Netanyahu declared earlier yesterday that the Obama administration has no "moral right" to keep Israel from attacking as long as the U.S. doesn't set its own "red lines" for Iran. His remarks reflect differences within his government about an Israeli attack on Iran and a bid to pressure Obama less than two months before the U.S. election. The call came after Israeli media reports, denied by the White House, that Netanyahu's request to meet Obama later this month was snubbed.

(How is that last one a gift? We were reminded yesterday of Netanyahu's initial reaction to 9/11: "It's very good." Then he edited himself: "Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.")

The Islamic world is in flames, the Israelis are acting like douchebags again, and Obama, just ahead of his re-election, gets the opportunity to make a real-world demonstration of the differences between him and Mitt Romney's foreign policy shortfalls. And he gets to raise the spectre of a nuclear Iran for free. That's a three-bagger.

Romney, by the way, had this to say about the Egyptian protest: "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

It's disgraceful that the Romney campaign's first response was not to support the administration in finding a peaceful solution to a mostly preaceful protest.

That this all happened on September 11 is no coincidence, I'm sure. Egyptians rallied around us, just as nearly every other nation on the planet did, including Libya. There's a deliberate syncopatic response in yesterday's actions in Egypt and today's in Libya.

So while Romney is left flailing about for a response and allowing Reince Priebus to cheerlead the death of Americans and failure of the current administration, President Obama gets to appear presidential and oh, by the way, behave precisely the way an administration should behave in the face of aggression by nebulous and angry mobs.

Unlike, say, eleven years ago... 

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Islamists vs. Islamists: a positive for Egypt? (Part 2)

By Ali Ezzatyar

(For Part I, from a few days ago, see here.)

The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood's ascent to power spelled the beginning of a dangerous era underestimated the complexities of the Egyptian landcape and overlooked a number of important nuances.

It is now clear that the Egyptian military establishment had no intention of letting the Brotherhood, or any party but its own, govern freely. While Mohamed Morsi is proving himself to be a competent tactician in the tug and war that has followed his election, his influence is still very limited. He and his party, backed by most Egyptians, are essentially locked in a power struggle with the military. The result of that struggle remains anyone's guess and will take many more months, if not years, to have any notion of permanence.

Further, insofar as Morsi is able to form and implement domestic and foreign policy, the circumstances under which he is forced to formulate such policy is necessarily bringing him away from the extreme elements in his own party. That should be an essential consideration for the international community, and particularly the West, in developing its own policies towards the new Egypt.

The Egyptian military, led symbolically by its president, is currently embarking on an operation that is being called the most significant military exercise by its armed forces in 30 years. That operation, which targets Islamic militants, genuinely flies in the face of the conventional wisdom the world applied to Egypt when its revolution began. At the helm of power, the Brotherhood presidency has at least temporarily abandoned a number of its core pan-Islamic ideals. While this is likely seen by the new president as necessary to maintain stability in the short term, it also serves as a boon for none other than Israel, a purported arch-nemesis, and stability in the region.

This demonstrates two key things. First, power is begetting moderation, and second, Islamists, as with other long-time opposition parties that ascend to power, are rational when their hard-fought and won positions are at stake.

Naturally, since suspicion about the Muslim Brotherhood has not subsided, the media's spin on the events of the last two weeks has painted the military operation as Morsi's way of outmaneuvering the military. But that neglects the reality that the military still wields the power in Egypt -- any maneuvering Morsi is involved in, including dismissing members of the military itself, is likely with the military's support. It is unclear what this all means for the Brotherhood's longevity or its domestic policy going forward, but the current balance of power between the democratically elected party and the military suits the international community, and that community can take a few key steps to help maintain that balance:

First, it can provide the Egyptian military what it needs, in terms of material and moral support, to maintain domestic order. Besides the obvious practical necessities of stability, this will push the image that the government still has the ability to maintain order. Israel has set an example by allowing unprecedented access to movement within the Sinai. What this serves to do is build national confidence in the functioning of the Egyptian bureaucracy, which trickles down to the presidency only if the president publicly supports such activity. Given the precariousness of Morsi's position, he is obliged to give that support. If he later backtracks on the anti-militant stance he has taken, he may ultimately undermine his own legitimacy.

Second, the international community should continue to call on the Egyptian military to allow for the democratic process in Egypt to play itself out. Unlike its decision to ostracize Hamas in the aftermath of its election in the Palestinian territories to no benefit of Israel or the Palestinians, it has so far maintained a pro-democracy stance in Egypt. This is the only rational public face that the West can assume without losing the favor of the Egyptian people, but it is also a win-win situation tactically speaking. It can help further moderate Egypt's new government as it seeks to evolve and grow in stature. And since the military has demonstrated that international pressure to reform must have its limits, it is also relatively risk-free. The West can rest assured that the military will not be handing power to an Islamist government in short order. Meanwhile, the dichotomy between Egypt's two main domestic forces may serve to moderate both, which has the best chance for long-term stability and reform towards a healthy democracy.

Talk of a healthy democracy is still premature, to be sure. But with Morsi and other prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt recently calling for regime change in Syria, it would appear that some sort of order is emerging from the Egyptian chaos that can even serve as an example for Egypt's neighbors.

Islamists vs. Islamists: a positive for Egypt?

By Ali Ezzatyar

When purported Islamists in the Sinai brazenly massacred Egyptian border guards and broke through the Israeli border, it was difficult to interpret the event as anything but catastrophic. The attacks seemed to add some substance to fears of a new Islamist Egypt, the primary trepidation of many since the beginning of the uprisings in Tahrir square. Perhaps, though, this all presents an opportunity. The world only need to look at its most recent mistakes.

In the debate surrounding Islam, Islamism, and government, there is a critical question that remains to be answered. Does power moderate? There is little reliable data on the subject, since movements advocating for Islamic governments rarely win power; when they do, they are usually sabotaged.

In Algeria, the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) came to power in the early '90s through free and fair elections. This represented the only hiatus from government control for the revolutionary FLN, which lead Algeria since its independence (and continues to do so today). The FIS openly called into question the democratic process that brought them to power, asserting instead that the rule of God was superior to the rule of man. Citing the threat to the democratic process that the FIS posed, the Algerian military annulled the electoral process after only two months, driving the FIS underground and Algeria into a bloody civil war that decimated the country.

At the time, many advocated for the FLN and the military to respect the results of a fair electoral process. The argument was made that, if the FIS lead government failed to do things like pick up the trash regularly, ordinary Algerians would regret their choice and ultimately pressure them to change. The experiment never had the opportunity to play itself out.

The more recent and very relevant example is on Egypt and Israel's own doorstep. The Palestinian territories had their first region wide democratic elections in 2006 that pitted Hamas, the Islamist party, against Fatah, Palestine's equivalent of China's Communist Party. Hamas, who still has not recognized the legitimacy of the state of Israel, won a majority. The international community did not know how to react. While they had advocated for democracy and reform in the Palestinian territories, they had trouble reconciling that with the result of the popular vote. As a result, most security council countries acquiesced to Israel's response of effectively annulling the results of that election and sidelining Hamas from any genuine government of the territories.

This was an unfortunate outcome. In that case, there was immediate evidence of Hamas' recognition that they needed to abandon their anti-Israel idealism since they had been transformed from a revolutionary, anti-government movement, to the majority in parliament. Behind the scenes negotiations and meetings revealed that Hamas would even negotiate directly with Israel. Israel and the United States, however, declared Hamas' vocal non-recognition of Israel as a non-starter. Hamas was ejected from the driver's seat rather arbitrarily. Like with the FIS in Algeria, in Palestine, no quantifiable evolution in the political conflict, or the democratic process, has resulted since. Circumvention of the democratic process at the expense of Islamists does not seem to be working.

The Muslim Brotherhood's election in Egypt incited predictions of horror, likening Egypt's future to that of Iran's. As with our other examples, these fears have allowed traditional parties to exercise their influence and maintain their authoritarianism with impunity. Take the dismissal of Egypt's democratically elected, Islamist parliament.

Enter the conflict in the Sinai. The new Islamist presidency in Egypt, contrary to what anyone could have guessed, is locked in a battle with none other than Islamists in the Sinai. Mohamed Morsi has been forced to crack down on the alleged Islamic militants with force, both rhetorically, and militarily (to the extent his limited power allows). The primary reason for this is the obvious necessity to maintain control within Egypt’s borders and prevent a broader conflict with Israel.

But there are other factors at play that are important to note. Firstly, the president of a party whose members vowed to sever ties with Israel as an election platform is now seemingly cooperating closely with Israel. The Israelis are allowing Egypt to perform military sorties in the Sinai for the first time since 1973, despite a peace treaty explicitly outlawing such activities. Israeli politicians have characterized Egypt’s behavior as "positive." Out of catastrophe has grown unexpected collusion of the highest order.

Ultimately, anti government Islamic militancy has forced the new persident's hand in a way nobody, perhaps even Morsi himself, would have imagined. Given the suspicion surrounding his presidency, and the flagrant nature of the attacks in the Sinai and Israel, he had little choice. In essence, power for the Muslim Brotherhood has obliged them to act as any government would have in a similar scenario: crack down on militants that undermine your legitimacy and authority. With the unexpected killing of Egyptian border guards by these militants, an inevitability has surfaced of the sort that the FIS and Hamas never had the opportunity to witness: Power seems to be moderating. But it is more complicated than the events of one week. Sustaining this transition takes effort from everyone.

(Part 2 later in the week.)

What really makes Mitt Romney tick

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Hard work, providence, a rich daddy...

Earlier today, I wrote about the many gaffes, missteps, and otherwise revealing incidents that plagued Romney's trip to Israel, including his suggestion that Israeli/Jewish success and Palestinian (apparent) lack of success can be attributed to culture and the "hand of providence" (i.e., Israel thrives because it has a culture that allows it to, whereas the Palestinians do not; moreover, God is with Israel, directing its success, and against the Palestinians).

This is wrong for so many reasons, not the least of which is that these two peoples are not living in a vacuum but rather in a devastating situation in which one, the supposedly successful one, is militarily occupying the other. Indeed, as Dan Amira wrote at New York's Daily Intel, "a recent [World Bank] report on the economies of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip... concludes that the 'major constraints to private sector activity are the tight Israeli restrictions, and growth will not be sustainable until Palestinians have access to resources and are allowed to move freely.'"

Now, clearly, Romney's goal wasn't to provide an accurate analysis of the situation -- nor to offer a thorough, nuanced understanding of the two books he cited (and misrepresented), Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel and David Landes's The Wealth and Poverty of Nations -- but to score political points. And if that meant insulting an entire people, so be it. As Amira's colleague Jon Chait points out, though, "Romney has expressed versions of this belief over and over, including in his book. It appears to be a foundational belief of his."

And just what is that foundational belief? "The shorthand version he offers up on the campaign trail is little more than a modernized version of western self-congratulation: Those of us who are rich owe our success to hard work and strong values, and those who are poor have only themselves to blame."

This is "western self-congratulation," to be sure, but for Romney it is also self-congratulation, a self-validation of himself and his values. Israel is rich and Palestine is not, owing to hard work and values, but so too is Romney rich because of his own hard work and values, while those beneath him on the socio-economic ladder, which is to say almost everyone else on the planet, just isn't as good as he is. (Perhaps he also has the "hand of providence" helping him out?) It's a foundational belief -- and also the basis for so much of his self-aggrandizing plutocratic policy agenda (e.g., lower taxes on the rich, like himself; disregard for the plight of the poor; America as crusader for righteousness).

To understand Romney, and to understand just what he would do as president, what would guide him in the Oval Office, you need to understand this about him. It's easy to say he's a just a privileged rich douchebag, as we often have. It's actually much worse than that.

A look back at Romney's disastrous foreign tour

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What did I do? I was just being myself. I'm Mitt Romney, by golly!

So. He's back. In full-on denial mode and, predictably, blaming the media for his own self-inflicted embarrassment. (Oh, and with a silly veep app. Clearly, his campaign is desperate to turn the page.) Let's recap:

POLAND

CNN: Romney aide loses cool, curses at press in Poland
Los Angeles Times: Romney's travels take another detour into controversy

Politico: Romney aide to reporters: 'Shove it!'
National Journal: Romney Spokesman to Reporters: 'Shove It'
Talking Points Memo: Romney Aide Curses At Press in Poland

Boston Globe: Mitt Romney aide reprimands reporters for asking questions in Warsaw
ABC: Mitt Romney Spokesman Tells Reporters 'Kiss My...' at Polish Holy Site

Washington Post: Romney aide berates reporters as GOP hopeful wraps up overseas trip

Washington Post: Mitt Romney's overseas jaunt v. Obama’s 2008 voyage: What a difference staffing makes

Reuters: Romney chides Russia on last leg of bumpy foreign tour

 

ISRAEL

Bloomberg: Palestinian Outcry Overshadows Polish Praise for Romney
Associated Press: China says Romney's comments on Jerusalem wrong
CNN: Palestinians protest Romney statements as 'racist'
New York Times: Romney Comments on Palestinians Draw Criticism
Los Angeles Times: Romney remark draws anger from Palestinians
Los Angeles Times: Fallout from Romney's 'culture' remarks in Israel continues
ABC: Romney’s Israel Comments Anger Palestinian Leader
ABC: Romney's Overseas Trip Continues With Another Fumble
Boston Globe: Romney remarks on Palestinians prompt outrage
National Journal: Palestinian Official Criticizes Romney's Comments as 'Racist'
New York Magazine: Mitt Romney Insults Whole New International Populace
Talking Points Memo: Romney: Socialized Health Care Good For Israel, Not For U.S.
Real Clear Politics: Romney's Foreign Trip Takes Another Contentious Turn
Haaretz: In Jerusalem, Romney's remarks against Palestinian culture seen as racist

CNN: Romney campaign changes mind, allows press into fund-raiser

Bloomberg: Romney Opens Fundraiser in Israel to Media After Outcry

National Journal: Report: Media Barred from Romney Fundraiser in Violation of Agreement

Washington Post: Romney bans media from Jerusalem fundraiser, violating pre-established protocol

CNN: Romney cancels meeting with party leaders in Israel

BuzzFeed: Romney Campaign Muddles Iran Stand

New York Daily News: In a speech outside of Jerusalem's Old City, Romney talked tough about responding to the Iranian nuke threat, and clarified confusion created by his aide 

NPR: Romney Camp Comments On Possible Israeli Action In Iran, Then Clarifies

ABC: Romney Heads to Israel After Rocky London Trip

Washington Post: Romney looks for a breakout moment in Israel to salvage foreign trip

NBC: Romney looks for political lift in Israel after London miscues

Jerusalem Post: Romney arrives in Israel after rough start to foreign tour

 

LONDON

New York Times: Romney’s Remarks Cause Stir in London

AP: Romney goes to Europe, causes international stir

ABC/Yahoo: Romney under fire for comments about London Olympics

Los Angeles Times: Romney's remarks on London Olympics distract from visit
Bloomberg: Romney Riles Londoners With Comments on Olympic Games
Boston Globe: Mitt Romney, lost in translation
Washington Post:  Mitt Romney tries to steer around Olympics controversy in London meetings
Wall Street Journal: U.K. Leaders Defend Games After Romney Comments

AP: Romney struggles to stem his own Olympics fallout

CNN: Romney trip begins in shambles

Washington Post: Mitt Romney: Showing gold medal tone deafness in London

ABC/Yahoo: London mayor mocks Romney at Olympic rally

Washington Post: London mayor Boris Johnson ribs ‘a guy called Mitt Romney’ at rally

The Hill: British PM slams Romney suggestion London not ready for Olympics

Boston Globe: Mitt Romney’s Olympics comments trigger response from Cameron, British press

CBS: Did Romney break cone of silence?

Wall Street Journal: Romney’s Not-So-Secret Meeting With MI6

Huffington Post: Chuck Todd Calls Mitt Romney Out Over Press Access

Politico: NBC's First Read rants on Romney

All of which is to say, it didn't go well. Not well at all.