1.Spero Forum(http://www.speroforum.com)
(1)Israeli diplomats go to Paris to resist Obama's deal with Iran, 22 March 2015
by Martin Barillas
Speaking on NBC's Meet the Press on March 22, Israeli Ambassador told host Chuck Scott that Israel continues to hold to a two-state solution to the continuing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This came in response to concerns raised in the U.S. that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had appeared to say that he would not permit a Palestinian state. Since his landslide election on March 17, Netanyahu has apparently walked back from that position and said that "circumstances will have to change."
In an interview with the Huffington Post, President Barack Obama said that he took Netanyahu "at his word" that he does not support the erection of a Palestinian state - apparently dismissing the Israeli premier's clarifications. Obama said that he is reassessing the United States historic relationship with Israel as a result. Netanyahu has been a sharp critics of the Obama administration's negotiation with Iran over the latter's nuclear weaponization program. Netanyahu has famously referred to it as a "bad deal" that goes against the interests of Israel, and the United States. a that Netanyahu has softened his stance since winning reelection Tuesday.
“We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership, and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region,” Obama said. The president said that he made his position clear in a congratulatory telephone call to Netanyahu last week. Obama added, “And I indicated to him that given his statements prior to the election, it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations are possible.”
Ambassador Dermer said that his government is focused on Israel's security. When asked what is his response to Obama's statement, Ambassador Dermer said "He didn't say what the president and others seem to suggest that he's saying," Dermer replied. "And he was very clear about it in his interview with Andrea Mitchell. He didn't change his position. He didn't run around giving interviews saying he's now against the Palestinian state."
Ambassador Dermer averred that "circumstances over the last few years" have changed, with regard to regional security. "We have a collapse of a 100-year order in the Middle East. And militant Islam is charging into the void. That's the first thing that changed," he explained. Dermer said that his country is not "in favor of a Palestinian state that will continue to wage war against Israel."
Israel's concerns over Obama's deal-making with the Islamic Republic of Iran were piqued on March 22. Netanyahu sent his top negotiators to Paris for talks with the French foreign ministry. According to a Reuters report, Israel appears to have concluded that the French position as to the Iranian nuclear program more closely adheres to Israel's and at a time when relations with the United States are at an all-time low. French officials appear to agree with Israel that the deal being worked out between the Obama administration and Iran would be far too lenient. The deal proposed by France would have a duration of 25 years, rather than Obama deal that would expire in a decade. In any event, Republicans have vowed that Obama's deal would be void should his successor be a Republican.
・Spero News editor Martin Barillas is a former US diplomat, who also worked as a democracy advocate and election observer in Latin America. He is also a freelance translator.
(2)Obama is not Commander-in-Chief of foreign policy, 24 March 2015
by Alan Dershowitz
Politicians should stop referring to the President of the United States as "the Commander-in-Chief," as he is often referred to. Most recently, Hillary Clinton, whom I admire, said the following about Republican senators who wrote an open letter to Iran:
"Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the Commander-in-Chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy."
But the president is not the Commander-in-Chief for purposes of diplomatic negotiations. This characterization mistakenly implies that President Obama — or any president — is our Commander, and that his decisions should receive special deference. This is a misreading of our constitution, which creates a presidency that is subject to the checks and balances of co-equal branches of the government. The president is only the commander in chief of "the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This provision was intended to assure civilian control over the military and to serve as a check on military power.
The only people he is empowered to command are soldiers, sailors and members of the militia — not ordinary citizens.
This important limitation on the president's power is highly relevant to the current debate about Congress having the authority to check the president's decision to make the deal that is currently being negotiated with Iran. The Constitution is clear about this. The President is not the Commander-in-Chief of our nation's foreign policy. When he is involved in "high-stakes international diplomacy," his involvement is not as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, but rather as negotiator-in-chief, whose negotiations are subject to the checks and balances of the other branches.
As President, he cannot even declare war, though he can decide how a war should be fought after Congress declares it. He cannot make a treaty without the approval of 2/3 of the Senate. He cannot appoint Ambassadors without the consent of the Senate. And he cannot terminate sanctions that were imposed by Congress, without Congress changing the law. Were he the "Commander-in-Chief" of our country — as Putin is of Russia or as Ali Khamenei is of Iran — he could simply command that all of these things be done. But our Constitution separates the powers of government — the power to command — into three co-equal branches. The armed forces are different: power is vested in one commander-in-chief.
To be sure, when politicians call our president the "Commander-in-Chief," they are using that term rhetorically. But it is a dangerous rhetoric, because it suggests a concentration, rather than a division, of power. Military metaphors are as inappropriate in a democracy as is martial law, which does empower the executive to act as the commander of all people, but only in cases of extreme emergency.
So let's describe the president by his actual constitutional role: the head of the executive branch of our tripod government that stands on three equal legs. As the head of the executive branch, he gets to negotiate treaties, agreements and other bilateral and multilateral deals. But Congress has a say in whether to approve what the president has negotiated.
Turning to the deal with Iran over nuclear weapons, there are sharp disagreements between the executive branch and the legislative branch over the merits of what appears to be the deal now on the table. No agreement has yet been reached, but assume, for argument's sake, that the president negotiates a deal with which a majority of Congress fundamentally disagrees. Who gets the final word? That depends on several factors.
First, of course, is whether the deal negotiated by the president constitutes a "treaty", within the meaning of the constitution. If it does, then it requires the formal ratification of the Senate. The Obama administration has taken the position that this is merely an executive agreement and not a treaty. That of course is a knife that cuts both ways, because treaties are binding until formally revoked, whereas executive agreements can be undone by future presidents. The law is anything but clear as to what makes a bilateral or multilateral agreement a treaty, but this one has elements that are treaty-like in its content. So even if it does not formally meet the definition of a treaty, this agreement should require some form of approval by the legislative branch, particularly if it is to remain an enduring part of American foreign policy.
Another factor that impacts the role of Congress is whether the agreement requires Congress to remove existing sanctions that were put in place by congressional action. If it does, then the approval of Congress for the removal of such sanctions will be required. This deal would seem therefore to require congressional approval, since it includes the removal of congressional sanctions. The president, however, does have some sanctioning power and he can remove sanctions that he or past presidents have imposed.
These important issues will be debated over the next weeks and months, but what should not be debated is the role of the president in a democracy based on the separation of powers. So let's stop calling the head of our executive branch the "Commander-in-Chief," and let's stop creating the false impression that the president alone can make an enforceable and enduring deal with Iran regarding its nuclear weapons program.
・Alan M. Dershowitz is an expert on constitutional law. He writes for the Gatestone Institute, from where this article is adapted.
(3)Obama unleashes war on Israel, 24 March 2015
by Bassam Tawil
Instead of congratulating the Israeli people for being one of the few countries in the Middle East to hold real free and democratic elections, Obama has decided to inflict collective punishment not on Netanyahu, but on all Israelis, even its Muslim and Christian citizens, for having an election that came out not the way he wanted it to.
The terrorists have also been following with great enthusiasm reports that the Obama Administration is considering reassessing its policy -- that the U.S. no longer considers Israel a strategic ally in the Middle East.
In short, Obama's anti-Israel stance is the best gift the Americans could have given to Muslim terrorists and radical Arabs.
Obama also seems not to want to face the fact that because of his withdrawals and neglect, the situation in the Middle East today, with the rise of Islamic State and other terror groups, is not the same as it was even five years ago.
Thanks to Obama's policies, the Iranians and their friends are now in control of Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, and much of Bahrain, and have surrounded the oilfields of the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile the U.S. has been forced to close down its embassies in three Arab countries -- Syria, Libya and Yemen.
Even Palestinians and Arabs are aware of the fact that under the current circumstances a Palestinian state would sooner or later be controlled by jihadists and Islamic terrorists, whose dream is the destruction of Israel, Europe and the U.S.
The last thing the Americans and Europeans need is another Islamic extremist country that exports terrorism -- with nuclear weapons -- to all parts of the earth.
The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real enemy is Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Islamic State.
Many Arabs and Muslims are rubbing their hands in joy as they watch U.S. President Barack Obama declare war on Israel after the victory of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party in last week's general election.
They do not see the rising tensions between Obama and Netanyahu as the result of a personal dispute between two leaders. Instead, the dispute is seen by many Arabs and Muslims as part of the Obama Administration's strategy to undermine Israel and force it to make territorial concessions that would pose an existential threat to Israel.
At the beginning of his first term in office, he raised high hopes in the Arab and Islamic countries when he rushed to deliver an apologetic speech at the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Al-Azhar University in Cairo. His speech left many Arabs and Muslims with the impression that here, finally, is an American president who is prepared to sacrifice Israel for the sake of appeasing its enemies.
Muslims have long considered Obama to be on their side in the conflict with Israel. They were expecting him to become the first U.S. president to abandon Israel in favor of Arabs and Muslims. But since the 2009 speech in Cairo, there has been great disappointment with Obama in the Arab and Islamic countries for failing to "do something" about Israel.
Now, at long last, the Obama Administration's increased hostility toward Israel is being welcomed in many Arab and Islamic capitals. They are overjoyed to see that after failing the Arabs and Muslims for the past six years, Obama seems finally to be moving in the "right" direction.
Terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad are also expressing satisfaction with what they see as Obama's "declaration of war" against Israel. Palestinian Authority officials in the West Bank are also celebrating over the fact that Israel has become the number one enemy of the Obama Administration.
This week, a Palestinian Authority official was quoted as saying that the Palestinians would not be surprised if President Obama himself joined their campaign to file war crimes charges against Israel before the International Criminal Court. The official was reported to have told a Ramallah-based Western diplomat that Obama hates Israel and this was good news for the Palestinians.
Israel's enemies have been sitting on its borders and waiting for an opportunity to attack. One of the reasons they have been reluctant until now to wage an all-out war to destroy Israel was their fear that the U.S. would come to Israel's rescue. But now, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State and other terror groups are hopeful that Obama has finally decided to abandon Israel.
The terrorists also have been following with great enthusiasm reports that the Obama Administration is considering reassessing its policy in the Middle East in the wake of Netanyahu's electoral victory. This is exactly the kind of news they have been waiting to hear for so many years -- that the U.S. no longer considers Israel its main strategic ally in the Middle East.
Reports that the Obama Administration will no longer support Israel in international forums and agencies, especially in the UN General Assembly and Security Council, are seen by a growing number of Arabs and Muslims as the beginning of the end of the partnership between the U.S. and Israel. This partnership has worried Israel's enemies for decades because it stands in the way of achieving their goal of wiping Israel off the face of the earth.
In short, Obama's anti-Israel stance is the best gift the Americans could have given to Islamist terrorists and radical Arabs. For the first time ever, the Obama Administration has created hope among Israel's enemies that the U.S. will at last give them his wholehearted support, just as he has been doing with Iran.
The sharp crisis between the Obama Administration and Israel has been taking place at a time when the U.S. is losing most of its Arab and Muslim friends, especially in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, as well as other countries. It is also taking place at a time when Iran is capturing one Arab country after the other, and has now surrounded all the oilfields in the Persian Gulf, as well as having quietly for years infiltrated South America.
Thanks to Obama's policies, the Iranians and their friends are now in control of Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, and much of Bahrain, and have surrounded the oilfields of the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been forced to close down its embassies in three Arab countries -- Syria, Libya and Yemen.
Instead of facing the dangers of the Iranian drive to export the Islamic revolution to as many Arab and Islamic countries as possible -- with the help of an accelerating operation to acquire nuclear weapons -- Obama has turned Israel in general, and Netanyahu in particular, into the main threat to world peace and stability.
And instead of congratulating the Israeli people for being one of the few countries in the Middle East to hold real free and democratic elections, Obama has decided to inflict collective punishment not on Netanyahu, but on all Israelis, even its Muslim and Christian citizens, for having an election that came out not the way he wanted it to.
What Obama does seem to want is to force Israel to accept a Palestinian state that would pose an existential threat to it and become the source of instability and tensions in the region. Obama also seems not to want to face the fact that because of his withdrawals and neglect, the situation in the Middle East today, with the rise of Islamic State and other terror groups, is not the same as it was even five years ago.
Even Palestinians and Arabs are aware of the fact that under the current circumstances a Palestinian state would sooner or later be controlled by jihadists and Islamic terrorists, whose dream is the destruction of Israel, Europe and the U.S.
If Obama is interested in reconsidering his Middle East policy, he should start by examining the repercussions of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on regional and international security. The last thing Americans and Europeans need is another Islamic extremist country that exports terrorism -- most probably with nuclear weapons -- to all parts of the earth.
Obama needs to wake up. The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real enemy is Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Islamic State. Unfortunately, Obama -- as he continues undermining moderate Muslims and Arabs in the free world -- has decided to side with the wrong side.
・Bassam Tawil writes for the Gatestone Institute, from where this article is adapted.
(4)France thinks Obama's foreign policy is naive，17 March 2015
by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet
French leaders think the U.S. president is dangerously naïve on Iran's ambitions, and that his notion of making Iran an "objective ally" in the war against ISIS, or even a partner, together with Putin's Russia, to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, is both far-fetched and "amateurish."
When Claude Angéli says that both France's Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, and its President, François Hollande, have told friends that they rely on "the support of the US Congress" to prevent Obama from giving in to Iran's nuclear ambitions, it is the kind of quote you can take to the bank.
French diplomats worry that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, every other local Middle East power will want them. Among their worst nightmares is a situation in which Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia join the Dr. Strangelove club.
French diplomats may not like Israel, but they do not believe that the Israelis would use a nuclear device except in a truly Armageddon situation for Israel. As for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Turkey going nuclear, however, they see terrifying possibilities: irresponsible leaders, or some ISIS-type terrorist outfit, could actually use them. In other words, even if they would never express it as clearly as that, they see Israelis as "like us," but others potentially as madmen.
The Quai d'Orsay (the French Foreign Ministry) may loathe, on principle, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: any briefing by French diplomats will, as a matter of course, explain how very wrong Israel is to alienate its "American ally." All the same, France's political stance on the projected U.S.-Iran deal is astonishingly close to that of the Israeli PM, as he outlined to the U.S. Congress on March 3.
Laurent Fabius -- once François Mitterrand's youngest Prime Minister; today's François Hollande's seasoned Foreign Minister -- is "fed up with Barack Obama's nuclear laxity" regarding Iran, a Quai senior diplomat told Le Canard Enchaîné's usually well-informed Claude Angéli, who can be relied on to give the unvarnished French view on matters foreign. "Just as in 2013, France will oppose any agreement too favorable to Iran if this turns out to be necessary. Fabius made this very clear to John Kerry when they met on Saturday March 7th."
This, Angéli points out, is far from the "soothing communiqué" issued at the end of the Kerry-Fabius meeting in which both men supposedly "shared" the same view of the Iran negotiations. The communiqué itself may have come as a surprise to a number of French MPs and Senators from their respective Foreign Affairs Committees. Fabius himself, in a meeting last week, made extremely clear his deep distrust ("contempt, really," one MP says) of both John Kerry and Barack Obama. Another of the group quotes Fabius as saying: "The United States was really ready to sign just about anything with the Iranians," before explaining that he himself had sent out, mid-February, a number of French 'counter-proposals' to the State Department and White House, in order to prevent an agreement too imbalanced in favor of Iran.
Appearances can be deceiving: Anne-Elisabeth Moutet writes that France's political stance on the projected U.S.-Iran nuclear deal is very close to that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Above, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif hugs French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, at the close of nuclear talks in Geneva, Nov. 23, 2014. (Image source: ISNA)
Le Canard Enchaîné ("The Manacled Mallard") is France's best-informed political gossip weekly. Long before the rest of the French press, away from General de Gaulle's paralyzing shadow, started investigative reports of their own, Le Canard, using a contact network second to none, used to break scoops only rarely picked up by the rest of a servile media pack.
We owe it the story of conservative President Giscard d'Estaing's ill-gotten gifts of diamonds (from Central Africa's self-styled Emperor Bokassa). An equal-opportunity hitter, Le Canard also broke the story of the Socialist Mitterrand's wiretaps of some 5,000 journalists and personalities, only stopping short of explaining why: Mitterrand wanted to hide from the public the existence of his mistress and their daughter Mazarine. Newer brash French tabloids have only very recently started to examine the private lives of politicians, and Le Canard still doesn't care to do so. More recently, it revealed that the head of France's Communist union CGT had his new luxury apartment entirely refurbished at the ailing union's expense, complete with a home cinema: this cost him his job after an undignified couple of weeks of useless stonewalling.
So when Claude Angéli says that both Fabius and President François Hollande have told friends that they rely on "the support of the US Congress" to prevent Obama from giving in to Iran's nuclear ambitions, it's the kind of quote you can take to the bank. French leaders think the U.S. president is dangerously "naïve" on Iran's ambitions, and that his notion of making Iran an "objective ally" in the war against ISIS, or even a partner, together with Putin's Russia, to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, is both far-fetched and amateurish.
The French are still smarting from the last-minute reprieve Obama granted Syria, as the French air force was about to bomb the Assad regime's military positions back in 2013, because the U.S. President had been convinced by Russia that they had succeeded in making Syrian President Bashar al-Assad give up on the use of his chemical weapons. "Our Rafale fighters were about to scramble," a French air force officer is quoted as saying; "Hollande was furious."
When Laurent Fabius briefed members of the French parliament last week, he was, according to Angéli, quite precise, mentioning as conditions necessary in any agreement a "reconfiguration" of the Arak nuclear site, where Iran enriches the heavy water necessary to produce plutonium bombs, as well as a sharp limit to the number of Iranian centrifuges, and complete access to all nuclear sites for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections.
French diplomats are no angels, and they haven't suddenly turned 180 degrees from their usual attitude of reflexive dislike toward Israel. They worry, however, that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, every other local Middle East power will want them. Among their worst nightmares is a situation in which Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia join the Dr. Strangelove club. French diplomats may not like Israel, but they do not believe Israelis would use a nuclear device except in a truly Armageddon situation for Israel. As for Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Turkey going nuclear, however, they see terrifying possibilities: irresponsible leaders, or some ISIS-type terrorist outfit, could actually use them. In other words, even if they would never express it as clearly as that, they see Israelis as "like us," but others potentially as madmen.
・Anne-Elisabeth Moutet writes for the Gatestone Institute, from where this article is adapted.
2.Algemeiner(http://www.algemeiner.com)
(1)Leading US Rabbi Joins Chorus of Concern Over Obama Administration’s Attacks on Israel, 27 March 2015
by Alegemeiner Staff
One of America’s most prominent rabbis, Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, has voiced concern over the Obama Administration’s latest assault on Israel, following the reelection of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu last week.
In an email to congregants on Wednesday, Lookstein, the spiritual leader of New York City’s famed Kehilath Jeshurun synagogue and principal of the prestigious Ramaz school, said that while “I try to steer clear of politics in my sermons and in messages to the community. There are times, however, when an exception should be made.”
“One of those times is now,” the rabbi continued, “when reports are coming from the administration in Washington of a need for reassessing the Israel/United States relationship.” Lookstein, who was ranked by Newsweek in 2008 as the most influential Orthodox pulpit rabbi in the United States, followed with a full-throated endorsement of an article by syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, who argues that “there is zero chance” that the right climate for the establishment of a Palestinian state will come “now or even soon.”
Krauthammer concludes, “In the interim, I understand the crushing disappointment of the Obama administration and its media poodles at the spectacular success of the foreign leader they loathe more than any other on the planet. The consequent seething and sputtering are understandable, if unseemly. Blaming Netanyahu for banishing peace, however, is mindless.”
Lookstein said Krauthammer’s article “presents with utmost clarity an assessment of the reassessment. It deserves the attention of all of us.”
The commentary, first published by The Washington Post, follows a week of harsh criticisms, veiled threats and alleged media leaks by Obama Administration officials directed towards Israel and its newly reelected Prime Minister Netanyahu. The attacks were largely focused on comments Netanyahu made while on the campaign trail about the establishment of a Palestinian state, and Israeli Arabs.
The escalation of rhetoric led to pushback from a number of leading Jewish figures as well as pro-Israel activists and congressional leaders, including some that have traditionally been aligned with the administration.
Writing for The Algemeiner on Thursday, Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, who has been critical of Netanyahu in recent weeks, said he is “even more troubled” by the “statements now coming out of the White House calling for a reassessment of policy toward Israel.”
Foxman wrote, “Let me be clear: I wish Mr. Netanyahu would do more to solidify relations with Israel’s ally in America and to stand up to those in Israel who seek to make impossible a Palestinian state. None of this, however, justifies what we are hearing from the Obama Administration. Their reactions raise deeper questions about their intentions and perspectives.”
Earlier in the week, the dovish American Jewish Committee head, David Harris, said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post that “The fact that the outcome of a Democratic election in Israel seems to be of great concern” to the Obama Administration “is cause for deep anxiety and puzzlement.”
“Whatever the failings of the prime minister, the way this is unfolding runs completely contrary to the spirit of US-Israel relations,” Harris said. “The US appears to have a reasoned interest in prolonging the crisis.”
(2)France to Launch Push for UN Resolution on Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, 27 March 2015
by JNS.org
JNS.org – France is planning to launch a push for a United Nations Security Council resolution that will lay out the parameters for ending the Arab-Israeli conflict.
“We have said that these parameters have to be defined and recognized by the Security Council and that obviously the two parties have to discuss, but the discussion will be accompanied by an international effort,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Friday, Reuters reported.
France, along with the United Kingdom and Germany, drafted a Security Council resolution late last year after the council voted against a Palestinian-initiated resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from the disputed territories by 2017. But those countries decided to table the resolution until after the recent Israeli election.
The United States voted against the Palestinian-initiated resolution, but President Barack Obama has indicated that the U.S. may “reassess” its options regarding Israel in the U.N.
“I hope that the partners who were reluctant will not be reluctant anymore,” said Fabius, apparently referring to the U.S.
But on Friday, the U.S. sharply criticized the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for continuing to single out Israel for criticism.
“We are disappointed that this council continually singles out Israel for criticism without acknowledging the violent attacks directed at its people, nor the obligations and difficult steps required of both sides. In short such singling out undermines the credibility of the council,” said U.S. Ambassador to the UNHRC Keith Harper in reference to recent resolutions dealing with Israeli actions in the disputed Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights.
(End)
