T Nation

Obama: Sanction Israel Not Iran


#1

"...reports...emerged early Thursday claiming that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on Israel for continuing construction on Jewish homes in Jerusalem...

At the same time, the White House is vigorously pushing Congress against passing new sanctions on Iran."

Washington Free Beacon

http://www.freebeacon.com/national-security/reports-obama-mulling-sanctions-on-israel/


Interesting "perspective" the Obama administration has on the Middle East no? Any thoughts about the direction the Obama administration has taken? A two state solution upon '67 "borders" - ie, the armistice lines; no settlement building in the meantime beyond those lines. Any thoughts on the Obama administration's perspective on the Middle East?


#2

I sometimes wonder is these reports are leaks from the administration designed to accomplish a much larger goal. Meaning they are not serious, but the rhetoric is being used for a purpose: either to poke or agitate the Prime Minister or to pacify our enemies. Or I guess Iran in this instance. I don’t follow foreign policy as close as I should, maybe I just don’t want to think Mr. Obama would be so misguided.


#3

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
…maybe I just don’t want to think Mr. Obama would be so misguided.[/quote]

I’ve been watching the administration’s foreign policy closely over the last six years and my opinion is that Obama is fundamentally antagonistic to Israel as a sovereign nation state. He sees the Israeli-Arab conflict as a kind of spearhead of imperialism and colonialism. That’s the lens through which he views the world. Remember he was given a bust of Winston Churchill as a gift after his visit to the UK and then returned it? That’s totally unparalleled in international relations. Who returns a gift as unwanted to the giver? Obama was making a statement. He hates Churchill because Churchill represents everything Obama has set himself against his whole life. This bizarre and unprecedented behaviour is indicative of Obama’s mindset and fundamental worldview.

Edited


#4

You sure about that claim SM?

[quote]Lately, there?s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.

Now, normally we wouldn?t address a rumor that?s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post?s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama ?started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.?

This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.

News outlets have debunked this claim time and again. First, back in 2010 the National Journal reported that ?the Churchill bust was relocated to a prominent spot in the residence to make room for Abraham Lincoln, a figure from whom the first African-American occupant of the Oval Office might well draw inspiration in difficult times.? And just in case anyone forgot, just last year the AP reported that President Obama ?replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln, and moved the Churchill bust to the White House residence.?

In case these news reports are not enough for Mr. Krauthammer and others, here?s a picture of the President showing off the Churchill bust to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House residence in 2010. [/quote]


#5

It may as well be connected with our president Obola being a muslim…


#6

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
It may as well be connected with our president Obola being a muslim…[/quote]

Depends what you mean. I like to consider myself a pretty good judge of character and I say Obama is an atheist. His sympathy with Palestinian radicals is an ideological sympathy based in his perception that they are an oppressed underdog fighting imperialist/colonialist aggression. He sees Israel through the same lens he saw South Africa during apartheid.


#7

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You sure about that claim SM?

[quote]Lately, there?s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.

Now, normally we wouldn?t address a rumor that?s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post?s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama ?started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.?

This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.

News outlets have debunked this claim time and again. First, back in 2010 the National Journal reported that ?the Churchill bust was relocated to a prominent spot in the residence to make room for Abraham Lincoln, a figure from whom the first African-American occupant of the Oval Office might well draw inspiration in difficult times.? And just in case anyone forgot, just last year the AP reported that President Obama ?replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln, and moved the Churchill bust to the White House residence.?

In case these news reports are not enough for Mr. Krauthammer and others, here?s a picture of the President showing off the Churchill bust to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House residence in 2010. [/quote][/quote]

I stand corrected. Although it does say the bust was returned; although apparently, as “standard procedure” following Bush’s leaving office. It also states Obama moved the Churchill bust to the WH residence to “make way” for an Abe Lincoln bust he wanted to display instead in the Oval Office.

So, I take on board my statement about the bust was not correct, however it’s unrelated to the subject of the thread: people’s views about the Obama administration’s relations with Israel, and specifically the reports that emerged on Thursday that Obama intends to sanction Israel for Jewish construction in East Jerusalem/Judea and Samaria.


#8

I agree with you with respect to the disrespect shown to Israel, I just happened to google about the bust, didn’t come up on snopes except for a thread, but I saw the WH page, so I’m assuming it’s accurate.


#9

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
It may as well be connected with our president Obola being a muslim…[/quote]

Depends what you mean. I like to consider myself a pretty good judge of character and I say Obama is an atheist. His sympathy with Palestinian radicals is an ideological sympathy based in his perception that they are an oppressed underdog fighting imperialist/colonialist aggression. He sees Israel through the same lens he saw South Africa during apartheid.[/quote]

I can’t vouch for your judge of character, but I think your assessment in this case probably has some merit.


#10

In the cold war mark two, there is no reason to assume that if a nuclear deal with Iran fails, the Russians or Chinese wouldn’t give them political backing and a busload of nuclear weapons. That is why Obama wants to make sure America gets a nuclear deal with Iran.

Israel is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because insofar as its primary priority might be described as ‘keeping Jews alive in Israel’, there is a limit to the geopolitical influence it can exert.


#11

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
It may as well be connected with our president Obola being a muslim…[/quote]

His ties with the Muslim Brotherhood must be considered.

The Dai Bama is anti-American power and exceptionalism at his core.


#12

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
"…reports…emerged early Thursday claiming that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on Israel for continuing construction on Jewish homes in Jerusalem…[/quote]

Based on what evidence? An op-ed from a partisan rag? Even if we assume these “reports” are accurate, why is Israeli construction in a de jure international city exempt from criticism?

In the context of the P5+1 nuclear talks, this makes perfect strategic sense. Sanctions brought Iran to the bargaining table, and reduced sanctions for increased Iranian transparency and safeguarding regarding its nuclear facilities has kept it there. Only an ideologue and/or idiot would be for a new round of sanctions at the present time.


#13

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Based on what evidence? An op-ed from a partisan rag?

[/quote]

It was reported by Haaretz:

Haaretz is a far left paper. It’s further to the left than the UK Guardian in my experience.

What the heck are you talking about “de jure international city?” It’s the sovereign territory of Israel, their capital city and the constructions are taking place in East Jerusalem(the Jewish quarter).

No it doesn’t. The Hussein administration has just granted a 7 month extension to Iran, giving them more time to develop their nuclear program. Only a fool or an ideologue would consider the talks to be anything other than a cynical time buying game from the Iranians.

[quote]

Sanctions brought Iran to the bargaining table, and reduced sanctions for increased Iranian transparency and safeguarding regarding its nuclear facilities has kept it there. Only an ideologue and/or idiot would be for a new round of sanctions at the present time.[/quote]

It seems that a great many people, particularly military brass who know what they are talking about, are advocating sanctions. Democrat, Bob Menendez does too and he’s been sidelined by the Obama regime for not towing the appeasement party line.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/03/white-house-and-top-democrat-clash-over-irans-nuclear-program/


#14

Not according to international law, it isn’t. Under the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the city was supposed to be a corpus separatum administered by the U.N. The legal status of Jerusalem is widely considered to correspond with the partition plan.

Its actually an extension to the talks, which are going well and involve extraordinarily complex technical specifications. By every qualitative and quantitative measurement administered by the IAEA, Iran’s nuclear program is more transparent and further away from the bomb than before the talks began. Iran has made multiple concessions in this regard in exchange for reduced sanctions. A new round of sanctions actually pushes Iran towards nuclear capability, not from it. Your narrative simply isn’t supported by the available data.

“It seems” is rather subjective, no? Let’s hear those opinions. I can counter with an equal or greater number of reputable experts who believe that the a deal resulting from the P5+1 talks is the best case scenario. Bob Menendez is pushing for a new round of sanctions, and this makes your argument how, exactly? Appeasement would be American acquiescence to the Iranian nuclear program, which is hardly the case. Stutnex was developed and deployed under the Obama administration. Economic sanctions are a coercive tool of statecraft in the same manner as the exercise of military force. The diplomacy that sanctions have made possible falls within the framework of coercive diplomacy. The administration has made it explicitly clear that it will not allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state, and would use military force to that end.


#15

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Not according to international law, it isn’t.
[/quote]

That depends upon who interprets and who makes the decision. Impartial, legal experts say it is part of the sovereign territory of Israel(a sovereign nation state). We went through all this a little while ago remember? You made a fool of yourself by quoting a radical anti-Semite and 911 conspiracy theorist: Richard Falk. You then argued that Falk is a respected authority and you tried to dismiss Sir Geoffrey Palmer and discredit him. It’s this sort of stuff that reveals your fundamental ideological bias as no serious observer would take such a radical position on the matter.

The partition plan that was rejected by the Arabs nearly 70 years ago? That plan? The one that was prior to the War of Independence and prior to the Six Day War and most importantly that was never accepted? What on earth does that have to do with anything?

No. A number of people who are radical anti-Israel activists take such a position but it’s a position that has absolutely no legal basis as you must surely be aware.

They’re “going well” are they? (Sigh)

Nonsense. The IAEA has stated that they can’t tell how advanced the program is exactly due to the perfidy of the Iranian regime in hiding, stalling, delaying, misleading, lying etc.

We’re “pushing” Iran towards developing a nuclear military capacity now are we? Yes, I know. We’re provoking them aren’t we? We can’t sanction Iran; we can’t strike their nuclear program; we just negotiate with them and they’ll cease their activities. Sure, sure.

Maybe I haven’t dunked my head in the right think tanks. You need to think for yourself instead of just choosing some ideology to slavishly follow. When I quote someone I often add “I disagree with (such and such) but…” - ie, I’m giving my own opinion and citing an authority to back up my opinion. You just quote stuff and that’s your position; whatever so and so says. That’s what you think; same as so and so. Exactly the same.

Yeah, I thought that as soon as I wrote it. “Seems” is not the best word. It is a fact that a great many distinguished military brass are urging sanctions and military strikes. You know this to be true.

Yeah I know this game. I quote an authority - “General so and so” - then you google “all the dirt on General so and so” rinse, repeat.

"Wetzel says the U.S. should not rely on Iran keeping its word. “Iranians lie a lot,” Wetzel said.

He compared negotiations between the U.S. and Iran to Britain’s negotiations with Hitler’s Germany in 1939. Wetzel referred to the recent negotiations as ridiculous, stupid and “possibly treason.”

Wetzel listed several options of how the Iranians could be stopped, but advocates a complete embargo barring all imports and exports to and from Iran, by air, land and sea. A total embargo would force regime change from within Iran.


Wetzel knows what he’s talking about. Combat vet of the Korean and Vietnam Wars and General Haig’s Chief of Staff during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis.

And they’re wrong.

I made my own argument. The reference to Menendez was to show that there’s a considerable body of opinion on the matter that comports with my own and not just from the Republican Party. Indeed, the Senate
voted for sanctions against Iran unanimously, 99-0, and Obama’s efforts to unravel sanctions unilaterally is only supported by a radical fringe - granted, this fringe includes the upper echelons of Obama’s personality cult; his inner circle of leftists.

Obama is doing his best to appease Iran but Congress have tied his hands to some extent because only the hard left fringe and the kooks want to appease Iran.

Obviously not coercive enough or Iran wouldn’t be on the cusp of breakout and testing nuclear detonators and so on.

[quote]
The administration has made it explicitly clear that it will not allow Iran to become a nuclear weapons state, and would use military force to that end. [/quote]

The administration also made it “explicitly clear” that if you like your health plan you can keep it, amongst other things. Any serious observer would have to admit that the Hussein regime’s foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran has been characterised by persistent weakness and unilateral concessions.


#16

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Impartial, legal experts say it is part of the sovereign territory of Israel(a sovereign nation state). [/quote]

This is simply not true.


#17

[quote]EvenIfItsSushi wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Impartial, legal experts say it is part of the sovereign territory of Israel(a sovereign nation state). [/quote]

This is simply not true.[/quote]

Actually, yes. Yes it is.

"Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case: “Where the prior holder(Jordan) of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense(Israel) has, against that prior holder, better title.”

And Jordan isn’t even claiming sovereignty over West Bank.

Here’s an extract by Prof. Julius Stone outlining Israel’s legal right under international law to Judea and Samaria:

http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/international-law-and-the-arab-israel-conflict


#18

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]EvenIfItsSushi wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Impartial, legal experts say it is part of the sovereign territory of Israel(a sovereign nation state). [/quote]

This is simply not true.[/quote]

Actually, yes. Yes it is.

"Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case: “Where the prior holder(Jordan) of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense(Israel) has, against that prior holder, better title.”

And Jordan isn’t even claiming sovereignty over West Bank.

Here’s an extract by Prof. Julius Stone outlining Israel’s legal right under international law to Judea and Samaria:

http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/international-law-and-the-arab-israel-conflict
[/quote]

Comedy. You found someone who agrees with you.

I see you used the terms Judea and Samaria. This removes any credibility you could have on the topic of the West Bank basically your a Zionist (aka racial supremacist with a strong Nationalist identity) and its really not worth discussing this with you.


#19

[quote]EvenIfItsSushi wrote:

I see you used the terms Judea and Samaria. This removes any credibility you could have on the topic of the West Bank basically your (sic) a Zionist (aka racial supremacist with a strong Nationalist identity) and its really not worth discussing this with you.[/quote]

Please.

Judea was the name in use in English until the Jordanian invasion of the areain 1948 (interestingly, the Jordanian officers were German Nazis and the troops largely Waffen SS), during which time they expelled the Jewish residents from Judea and Samaria to make it Juden Frei.

After its conquest, Jordan called the area “Ad-Difaâ??a Al-Gharbiya” (translated into English as the “West Bank”).

When the region was recaptured by Israel in 1967, they went back to the original names.

Samaria is Samaria, and has been since it is named after the town of Samaria, which is 3,000 years old. People called “Samaritans” live there (you may have heard of a few “good Samaritans”), to this day, and have lived in the area uninterrupted for 3,000 years.

In short, “West Bank” was a name made up by invading racist, Nazi-backed, Islamists who used the name for 19 years, and the names have been “Judea” and “Samaria” for the better part of 3 millennium.

If you are going to be an anti-Semite, at least pick something that doesn’t show you are an asshat.


#20

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
"…reports…emerged early Thursday claiming that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on Israel for continuing construction on Jewish homes in Jerusalem…

At the same time, the White House is vigorously pushing Congress against passing new sanctions on Iran."

Washington Free Beacon


Interesting “perspective” the Obama administration has on the Middle East no? Any thoughts about the direction the Obama administration has taken? A two state solution upon '67 “borders” - ie, the armistice lines; no settlement building in the meantime beyond those lines. Any thoughts on the Obama administration’s perspective on the Middle East?[/quote]

Ug, I wish Biden were president.