Regional and International Politics Discuss anything related to Regional and International politics, from Arab-Israeli Conflict to US Presidency Elections
People from around the world have been praising Obama's "change" policies, specifically when it came to the Middle East. Obama promised to talk to Iran, the Taliban, Russia, etc. which was seen as a positive sign.
But is it all just talk? I just came across this article, where the author accuses Obama and the US administration to be not even slightly changing its policies when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that the US will still remain as much pro-Israeli as before!
We saw it coming with the nomination of Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton at key posts within the administration. Now, Charles Freeman has had to withdraw from heading the National Intelligence Council, because of pressures from AIPAC!
I seriously dont think Obama will change anything regards the middle East. When he gave his first speach in public, he didnt stop repeating that their number one enemy is Iran and blablabla. From there, you should have understood that he is just another puppet to what they call '' the Jewish Lobby'' they should call it ''the zionists looby'' since Jewdaism is a religion but zionism is the american CIA and FBI world.
If you read Obama's Foreign Policy Agenda you will notice not much is changed...only that they seek to pursue a tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions with all nations...hm what this can mean??
Seemingly they endorse negotiations and diplomatic solution, they pledged to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan yet in the same document few lines under they talk about sending more troops to Afghanistan...
Concerning Israel their policy has not changed and they stress it very clearly. Not a single reference to holding Israel accountable and cutting back on aid if it does not abide by international law...on the contrary they plan to increase military and economic aid to Israel and they stress that Israel will be always the strongest US ally in the region and priority of US foreign policy focus...
They even mention the July 2006 Lebanon war as a good example of Israel's right to defend itself, they are kind of proud of how Obama also vetoed as a senate member to pressure Israel for cease fire.
Altogether this FP agenda is very disappointing, this is not the change what he was talking about..
ps: there are some unofficial back channel talks going on between the US administration and groups like Hamas or HA...lets see if anything positive comes out from them
The Following User Says Thank You to Salome For This Useful Post:
If you read Obama's Foreign Policy Agenda you will notice not much is changed...only that they seek to pursue a tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions with all nations...hm what this can mean??
Seemingly they endorse negotioations and diplomatic solution, they pledged to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan yet in the same document few lines under they talk about sending more troops to Afghanistan...
Concerning Israel their policy has not changed and they stress it very clearly. Not a single reference to holding Israel accountable and cutting back on aid if it does not abide by international law...on the contrary they plan to increase military and economic aid to Israel and they stress that Israel will be always the strongest US ally in the region and priority of US foreign policy focus...
They even mention the July 2006 Lebanon war as a good example of Israel's right to defend itself, they are kind of proud of how Obama also vetoed as a senate member to pressure Israel for cease fire.
Altogether this FP agenda is very disappointing, this is not the change what he was talking about..
I don't think that it is a wrong strategy. I used to think like you...
However, while we must admit that Bush did a grave mistake by invading Iraq in the first place, we must recognize that leaving both countries and washing their hands of the problems that exist there now, and leaving the people of both countries to their fate, is equally a mistake, one that would reflect an American egoism!
The US created the mess in both countries, but deciding to leave it without there being a solution to the crises in the first place, is a game they are playing, which leaves from the premise of saying "Iraqis are in a civil war because of themselves, we don't want to get in the middle of that war", while they actually started it!
I think what was needed after Bush, is a different approach, not a different policy! We don't need the US to leave the Middle East to its own fate after it created all the problems, but we need it there to be as an equal cooperative partner, not as an authoritarian homicidal occupier!
Creating a time-table for retreat is a first step. I agree with Obama's approach for Iraq: progressive retreat, long-term security cooperation with troops assistance!
I don't think that it is a wrong strategy. I used to think like you...
However, while we must admit that Bush did a grave mistake by invading Iraq in the first place, we must recognize that leaving both countries and washing their hands of the problems that exist there now, and leaving the people of both countries to their fate, is equally a mistake, one that would reflect an American egoism!
The US created the mess in both countries, but deciding to leave it without there being a solution to the crises in the first place, is a game they are playing, which leaves from the premise of saying "Iraqis are in a civil war because of themselves, we don't want to get in the middle of that war", while they actually started it!
I think what was needed after Bush, is a different approach, not a different policy! We don't need the US to leave the Middle East to its own fate after it created all the problems, but we need it there to be as an equal cooperative partner, not as an authoritarian homicidal occupier!
Creating a time-table for retreat is a first step. I agree with Obama's approach for Iraq: progressive retreat, long-term security cooperation with troops assistance!
Well I also didnt mean immediate withdrawal of troops, but a gradual approach, by delegating ever more responsibility to a hopefully competent Iraqi and Afghan government.
If they think seriously the restoring of US image worldwide, they will have no chance but to negotiate with the enemy. Especially with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Now that UK is opening official ties with the political wing of HA lets see if USA will follow this precedence.
About Hamas, it's not so clear if the HA precedence can work here. They are still listed as terrorist organization and so far no sign why wouldnt they, as actually till 2006 they were heavily engaged in suicide bombings...
but still they are and will be part of the PA government and seemingly there is a strong tendency toward negotiating with a joint PA leadership...
Who is that Middle East? If you mean Israel, then you are right.
Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, HAMAS... And Ofcourse Israel tries not to lose and be screwed as much as America and the entire west is now...Let them Pump another hundred Billion Trillion Dollars to refresh/Revive thier economy (which seems to be futile)... I just really hope someone would bomb Saudi Arabia's oil fields at the moment Then they would really be finished since it's our money which is saving them (**** if it weren't for Israel, many would have dared to do that).
Obama vs the Middle East -
13th March 2009
