Category Archives: foreign policy

Politics and Israeli Security

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Examiner‘s Philip Klein reported last Monday that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL) said to a training session for Jewish Democrats just before the Democratic Party Convention,

We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.  They’re undermining Israel’s security….

Wasserman Schultz denied this, saying her remarks were “deliberately” misrepresented.  She insisted, through an unnamed spokesman, that what she really said was this:

What jeopardizes Israel’s security is the suggestion, for partisan political gain, that the election of either political party would weaken the long-standing relationship of the United States and Israel….

(In response to her denial, Klein posted the audio of Wasserman Schultz’ remark.)

Then we have the 2012 Democratic Party Platform saying this about Israel: no mention of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which is a radical change from 2008 where the DNC acknowledged Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.  And party’s 2012 platform says this about Iran:

President Obama believes that a diplomatic outcome remains the best and most enduring solution.

At the same time, he has also made clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options—including military force—remain on the table[.]

This is another radical walk-back from their 2008 platform, which said

The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

When questioned about these changes, Wasserman Schultz’ DNC said this in its responding statement:

This is just another attempt by the Romney campaign to turn our support for Israel—which has always been bipartisan—into a partisan wedge issue by playing politics. This is both cynical and counter-productive to Israel’s security.

Hmm….

The Progressives once again ask us to choose between them and our lying eyes.

Update:  On Wednesday, in response to an enormous public outcry over this abandonment of Israel by the Democratic Party, the Democrats altered their rules for their platform content, and they reinserted language averring Jerusalem to be the Israeli capital.  Language concerning a nuclear Iran remains missing.

This is naked vote pandering.  The Democrats told the truth about themselves the first time.

Hmm….

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama had a lot of rhetoric in his acceptance speech last night.  He also had this, ostensibly referring to Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney:

You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally.

Was Obama really talking about himself, though?  After all, he’s the one who insulted Great Britain by sending back to them the bust of Churchill that had sat in the oval office for years, a gift from our closest ally.  And then doubled down on the mess by giving an iPod full of Obamatalk to Queen Elizabeth. He’s the one who travelled to Copenhagen to make a personal plea (“I’m the President,” he said then, and in his speech last night) for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympics, only to see them go with Rio de Janeiro without any further consideration of Chicago’s bid.

How’d he do in Beijing last week, then?

Meanwhile, the People’s Republic of China has laid claim to the entire South China Sea, nearly to the shores of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia.  Without any opposition from anyone, other than helpless protests from those victimized nations—and idle chit-chat from the pivoted-toward-Asia United States.

Obama, Israel, and Iran

Posted on by
Reply

The Blaze reported on a meeting in Israel several days ago that involved Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R, MI) wherein this apparently happened [emphasis mine]:

At the start of the meeting, [Netanyahu] opened with a sharp attack on the Obama administration which according to him has not done enough on the Iranian issue.  “Instead of effectively pressuring Iran, Obama and his people are pressuring us not to attack the nuclear facilities,” he said, and then moved on to a harsh criticism of the administration’s pronouncements indicating there is still room for diplomacy.  “The time has run out,” he said resolutely.

At one point, an anomalous thing occurred in the office, which is very unacceptable in diplomatic code.  Shapiro who was appointed by President Obama and for years was among his closest advisers decided he’d had enough.  Enough is enough.  He spoke and answered Netanyahu politely but in a manner that left no room for doubt.

The ambassador in fact accused Netanyahu of distorting Obama’s position.  He quoted the president, who promised he would not allow a nuclear Iran and said that all options – including a military strike – are on the table […]

It’s dismaying—and frightening, because it’s so dangerous—that all Shapiro could do was quote Obama’s words—he could cite only Obamatalk.  Shapiro could name no actual deeds as Iran, which has sworn to wipe Israel from the map, moves at an accelerating pace to achieve a nuclear bomb.

In fact, Obama actively is refusing to take concrete action, despite the “promises” of his Obamatalk.  He said, through his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey (who finds it “not useful” for ex-military to express their opinions when those opinions run counter to Party dogma), while speaking to reporters in London,

I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it [execute their own military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities].

“Complicit?”  You’re “complicit” when you go along with illegal activities….

Obama also pretended, through Dempsey, not to know Iran’s intentions.  The Guardian cited Dempsey as making this claim in those same remarks.  Apparently, the Iranian leadership with whom Obama is so desperate to engage is not to be taken at its word when those words are inconvenient:

Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.
–Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Our dear Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.
–Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

 

I regard supporting the plan for independence of Israel and its recognition a tragedy for the Muslims and an explosion for the Islamic governments.
–Ayatollah Khomeini

Israel must be eradicated from the page of history.
–Ayatollah Khomeini

And the routine invocation during Friday prayers in Tehran:

Death to Israel

 

h/t Power Line

Why Did the PRC Buy These Businesses?

Posted on by
1

The Wall Street Journal‘s Joseph Sternberg ran an op-ed the other day wondering whether the People’s Republic of China might be playing a risky game of “greater fool” in buying up failed or failing companies in the expectation of finding a greater fool to whom to sell these, later.

Mr Sternberg makes some interesting points, and his piece should be read in its entirety.  But I think he may be misreading the PRC on this; I think he’s making the same mistake here that the Obama administration is making about Iran and the usefulness of sanctions: each thinks these others—the PRC and Iran—think like we do.

They do not.  Their pain buttons are not the same as ours, their goals are not the same as ours, and so their motivations cannot possibly be like ours.  Sternberg cites two of the PRC purchases—the car battery maker, A123, and the Canadian oil and gas company, Nexen, for each of which the PRC paid large premiums, as his examples of the potential for the PRC finding itself at the end of the greater fool chain.

These are, indeed, useful examples for Sternberg’s points; consider, though, an alternative set of goals for the PRC’s acquisitions.  The PRC bought a controlling stake in A123 not for the car battery technology, but for the battery technology.  The PRC has, for instance, a burgeoning space program.  They have a desire to expand, generally and massively, into the solar power realm for a variety of reasons, and power storage is critical to both.

The PRC bought a controlling stake in Nexen, not because they think they can manage the company better than the incumbents but for Nexen’s Canadian oil and gas assets.  Recall that the PRC also has a burgeoning physical industry and transportation functionality that need copious quantities of oil.  Also, oil that the PRC controls is oil that the US does not.  Hormuz need not be the only bottleneck in our access to oil.

Pax Obama

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Monday op-ed likened Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s actions on the world stage—in particular vis-à-vis Syria—to a Samuel Beckett play.  After all, all the Syrians have to do is simply to hang in, and wait upon Obama’s convenience.

But the cost of that is enormous.  Aside from the 20,000 Syrian murders that have resulted from Obama’s dithering, aside from Iranian near-nuclear bomb achievement (to broaden the scope and result of his waffle), we’ve gone in these last three years from what was Pax Americana to a disastrous Pax Obama:

…thanks in part to Mr. Obama’s calculated abdication, Middle East tension and turmoil are rising.

And everywhere else in the world, especially including Europe and North America, if the Syrian butchery is allowed to continue apace and Iran is allowed to get nuclear weapons.