.jpg)
Says it all!
===
Are we nearing a top? Is the flight out of money into cars, as once was with tulips, a tip off?
You decide! (See 1 below.)
===
Another response to my previous memo by a dear liberal friend and fellow memo reader and my answer:
"It was explained the call from White House will come when new gov't. is formed. what are u expecting? a bouquet of roses?" L----
"Bibi received calls from other heads of nations and had this been Iran, Obama would have sent flowers and called as well. Me"
===
Is Russia and Putin testing our JV president? (See 2 below.)
Iran already has and found our JV president ripe for plucking. (See 2a below.)
===
Democrats have been given a choice! Will they fail? (See 3 below.)
====
Is Obama anti-Semiti, anti-Constitution and/or vindictive and/or . I have come to believe he is all three and therefore, a real threat to our nation, our friends and world peace. Ironic that he received a Nobel Prize for Peace and had done nothing beyond talk. . (See 4 and 4a below.)
I do not excuse Netanyhu's decision to swing further right to capture votes but considering the position Obama has placed Israel in, because of his abdication regarding Iran's nuclear quest, Netanyahu was left little choice. (See 4b below.)
Obama has himself and his inane foreign policies to blame for driving former allies beserk.
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
| |||
| I spent most of the weekend at the Ritz-Carlton in Amelia Island, Florida – where a 1960 Ferrari sold for a cool $6.38 million on Saturday. Classic Ferraris are up 254% over the last five years… but it wasn't just Ferraris that people were buying. Heck, a 1973 Porsche 911 sold for $891,000 – and to you and me it just looks like, well, a Porsche 911 from the 1970s. The Amelia Island car show over the weekend brought in a record $100+ million dollars in total car auctions… ----------Recommended Link---------
An event planner I spoke with told me they raised ticket prices by 25% to $100, with a goal of reducing the number of attendees… If that was the goal, they failed. Take a look…  This was the scene Sunday morning, less than 30 minutes after the show opened. Folks poured in. And the crowds didn't let up until late in the day. I've been going to this show for years. This year was the busiest – by far. Last weekend's event in Amelia Island showed me that American investors are no longer fearful. The prices and the turnout made me think that we are in the later innings of this stock market boom, where investors are becoming more willing to speculate. The car market wasn't always this hot… The entire classic car market fell by double-digits during the financial crisis, based on the Historic Automobile Group International (HAGI) Index. But this weekend shows that times have changed… The wealthiest in America are flush with cash. They've made good money in stocks so far. And they're using their gains and their optimism to boost prices in classic cars (among other assets). The U.S. stock market celebrated six years of this bull market earlier this month. The fun doesn't have to end tomorrow… But this weekend showed me that we are no longer early in the boom. Massive crowds, high prices, and strong optimism at a vintage car show are something you'd see closer to the top of a market than the bottom. To me, this weekend was another sign of the top… In my opinion, we are closer to the end of the great bull market in stocks than the beginning. Good investing, Brett Eversole P.S. We still think there's more upside in stocks from here, but it's time to be a little more cautious. If you want to know how we're preparing our portfolios, I urge you to check out our collapse "survival guide," including CIA insider Jim Rickards' excellent book, The Death of Money. Along with Jim's book, we've included five special reports that will show you exactly how we're preparing for the next collapse. And for a limited time, all of this material is FREE of charge (we only ask for $5 in shipping costs). To get all the details, click here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Russia Targets NATO With Military ExercisesSummary
Russian military exercises, the latest in a series across the country, have taken on a threatening posture. While the most recent installment is not the largest exercise Russia has conducted, the areas involved and the forces included seem to have been deliberately chosen to send a warning to NATO; the exercise itself seems to simulate a full-scale confrontation with NATO through the forward deployment of nuclear armed submarines, theater ballistic missiles and strategic bomber aircraft. Strategic weapon systems, including assets that are part of Russia's nuclear capabilities, have also been deployed to locations near NATO's borders.
Analysis
According to Russian statements, the snap exercise, which was not announced before it began March 16, will last five days and will involve some 45,000 servicemen, around 3,000 vehicles, more than 40 surface vessels, 15 submarines and 110 aircraft. The more notable systems involved are the Iskander mobile theater ballistic missiles and fighter aircraft that are being deployed to Kaliningrad, Tu-22M3 long-range strategic bombers that are being deployed to Crimea, and ballistic missile submarines that have been sent to sea with protective escorts.
The initial statement on the exercise focused on the role of the Northern Fleet, saying the main purpose of the drill was to test deployment times to Russian positions in Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land. Russia has increased its military presence in the Arctic, and the exercise highlights Russia's plans for the Arctic region. This part of the drill seems to be playing out in a rather straightforward way: Russian forces are being airlifted to Russia's Arctic bases and several naval exercises are taking place, including anti-submarine operations and mine sweeping procedures that typically precede the snap sorties of nuclear armed submarines in times of crises.
Actions Are Stronger Than Words
However, though the stated focus of the exercises is in the Arctic, operations have expanded to include military activities along the Finnish border, the deployment of strategic weapons systems to Kaliningrad and Crimea, and positions across the Baltic Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, and in the western and southern military districts. This combination lifts the exercise beyond a simple deployment of ground forces and naval exercises in the Arctic and forms a nuclear narrative.
The forward deployment of theater ballistic missiles and bomber aircraft are provocative indicators of possible pre-emptive action against NATO and Eastern Europe. Given Russia's military actions in Ukraine, the possibility, however unlikely, that the country could expand operations cannot be dismissed. For that reason, and because Russia has intentionally designed the drills to mimic a potential conflict with Europe, the exercises are cause for alarm in Europe.
By deploying Tu-22M3 bomber aircraft, Russia is also openly invoking the threat of nuclear confrontation. Considering Moscow's statements about a potential deployment of nuclear weapons to Crimea, Russia is clearly connecting the Ukraine crisis and its intentions in the Arctic to the nuclear deterrent it possesses.
Geographic Size Sets This Exercise Apart
The large geographic area this drill covers places it outside the usual pattern of other snap exercises conducted by Russia. It also puts it in the same areas where NATO has been conducting its exercises, including in the Baltics, Romania and Hungary. NATO's most notable drills have been conducted under the U.S. Operation Atlantic Resolve, which has seen the rotation of a brigade-sized U.S. Army force and the arrival of armor and helicopters to support that deployment. Russia has noted increased U.S. surveillance flights over the Baltics and the expanded Baltic air policing operation that NATO conducts there.
An exercise including parts of the Russian military stretching from the Northern, Baltic and Black Sea fleets through the western and southern military districts is notable. Russia has conducted even larger exercises in the past. However, those have tended to focus on a particular military district or fleet, or a combination of closely related ones. Conducting this single exercise in the area stretching from Norway to the Baltics through Poland and into Crimea is clearly angled toward NATO and its Eastern European members.
Considering the military tensions surrounding the Ukraine crisis and its fragile cease-fire, these exercises are an aggressive signal, particularly since they immediately follow Putin's mysterious disappearance last week. Russia has an interest in flexing its military muscle to remind everyone of the havoc it could wreak and to dissuade anyone from taking radical action in Ukraine. The United States has been careful when it comes to Ukraine, even delaying the deployment of 300 U.S. troops to western Ukraine as part of a training exercise. The United States maintains, however, that this deployment is still an option and could order it as early as April.
Beyond Ukraine, Russia is also responding to military exercise dynamics in Eastern Europe, where the Ukraine crisis has reverberated. A general increased tempo of Russia military activity (both in the sense of long distance strategic flights and large-scale military exercises), an increase in NATO presence and more exercises in Eastern Europe have resulted in a back and forth of military posturing reminiscent of Cold War shows of force.
In that context, Russia's exercises serve as threats to the opposing forces, demonstrating capabilities and suggesting intent. But they are important military tools to the Russian military as well. To maintain readiness, actually executing operations or deployments through exercises is a must. Beyond that, Russian military planners need to have a realistic understanding of the capabilities of Russian forces. There is no better way to gain this understanding than to let those forces run through operations, or parts of them, to determine the basic parameters that are feasible. As Russia tests its own capabilities, it shows the rest of the world the type of operations and the military districts it considers key in its strategic planning.
2a) ObamaCare for Arms Control
The Iran nuclear deal has the same political weaknesses as the Affordable Care Act.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
The Iran nuclear deal is going to be the ObamaCare of arms-control agreements—a substantive mess undermined by a failure to build adequate political support.
Next Tuesday is the deadline for completing the “political” terms of an agreement with Iran. “Technical” details arrive in June. From news reporting on the negotiations, it appears the agreement is turning into a virtual Rube Goldberg machine, a patchwork of fixes that its creators will claim somehow limits Iran’s nuclear breakout period to “a year.” Which is to say, it’s going to be another ObamaCare, a poorly designed mega-project others will have to clean up later.
Just as ObamaCare was a massive entitlement program enacted with no Republican support (unlike Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), the administration’s major arms-control agreement is bypassing a traditional vote in the Senate. Instead, it will get rubber-stamp approval by, of all things, the U.N. Security Council.
Can anyone feign surprise that this has produced a political reaction in the Senate? The heavily bipartisan Corker-Menendez bill, which would require the deal to be submitted to Congress and which the White House has denounced, is a few votes away from a veto-proof majority.
Opinion Journal Video
Wonder Land Columnist Dan Henninger on how President Obama’s nuclear negotiations resemble the political process that produced ObamaCare. Photo: Getty Images
Political legitimacy is the coin of the realm in the American system. It is why every U.S. president in the postwar era, except this one, has worked so hard to assemble opposition support for his projects. Without it, any initiative will remain politically vulnerable.
In a letter last weekend to Sen. Bob Corker,chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonoughdoubled down on Barack Obama’s general theory of American politics—my way or the highway. He wrote that other arms agreements haven’t gone through the Senate and that Mr. Corker and his Senate colleagues should step away from the Iran deal.
In fact, Presidents Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan all submitted major arms-control treaties and agreements for Senate approval. They did so to give their work political credibility with the American people and indeed the world. But somehow Mr. Obama believes he has an exemption from the basics of U.S. politics. So we wake up one day to find he is substituting the judgment of the Security Council, with such famous allies as Russia and China, for consent from the U.S. Senate. Result: an arms deal as politically flaccid as ObamaCare.
After the Affordable Care Act became a one-party law, many governors refused to participate. A mirror-image opt-out from the Iran deal is emerging now among the most significant nations of the Middle East.
Earlier this week, Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, told the BBC, “I’ve always said whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same.” He wasn’t talking about forsaking the nuclear option. Elaborating, he said, “If Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it’s not just Saudi Arabia that’s going to ask for that. The whole world will be an open door to go that route without any inhibition.” By the “whole world” he of course means Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. Are all these countries opposed to the Iran deal because they “hate Obama?”
On March 5 at the deal’s 11th hour, Secretary of State John Kerry flew to Saudi Arabia to reassure King Salman about the Iran deal, which is at least more time than Mr. Obama gave doubting U.S. governors on his health-care plan. The result was the same: no political buy-in. Emirates commentator Mishaal al-Gergawi told The Wall Street Journal: “A lot of the Gulf countries feel they are being thrown under the bus.” Welcome to the club.
Whether in domestic or foreign policy, Mr. Obama’s modus operandi is the same: Structure the issue as a choice between what he wants to do and an unacceptable extreme. The result, not surprisingly, is to choke off any possibility of building useful political coalitions from the outset.
With health care, the whole of GOP alternatives was “nothing new.” With Iran, it’s Mr. Obama’s deal or a “rush to war.” You get two political options: Salute or shut up.
As important as the constitutional issues raised by Mr. Obama’s unilateral authority is the political damage he has done to traditional relationships between the presidency and the institutions his methods have marginalized.
The Obama presidency has sucked the oxygen out of politics in Washington and indeed the world. But politics abhors a vacuum. The Senate letter to Iran more than anything is the system bursting outside its normal channels. Desperate Ukraine, abandoned to Russia by the U.S., has pathetically asked the U.N. to send blue-helmeted peacekeepers to eastern Ukraine.
No serious person can be shocked if what happens after the Iran nuclear agreement looks a lot like the ObamaCare rollout—a shambles of half-done details. With ObamaCare, America’s courts and bureaucracies are available to clean up the mess. But you may not like the cleanup crew that shows up for the ObamaCare of arms-control deals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a week to go before the deadline for the end of the current round of nuclear talks with Iran, the Obama administration is hopeful but by no means certain it can get a deal. The president has offered the Islamist regime generous terms that will allow it to keep its nuclear infrastructure and reportedly will include a sunset clause that will end restrictions on its nuclear activity at some point in the not-too-distant future. But the administration’s main concern right now is ensuring that Congress doesn’t pass legislation that would allow it a a say on any agreement. As Politico reports, the White House is orchestrating a lobbying blitz on Senate Democrats in an effort to convince enough of them to prevent the bipartisan coalition supporting a bill that will require a Congressional vote on any agreement from prevailing. That leaves those wavering Democrats with an interesting choice: obey the president’s demand for party line loyalty or defend the legislative branch’s constitutional rights on an issue where most of them are unhappy with the direction of administration policy.
At stake in this battle is the fate of the bill co-sponsored by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Bob Corker and ranking member Robert Menendez that would require a Congressional vote on any Iran deal. This is separate from the bill put forward by Menendez and Republican Mark Kirk that would impose new and tougher sanctions on Iran. Both have large majorities already on record as supporting them but last month 11 Senate Democrats, including Menendez, signed a letter to the White House saying that despite eagerness on the part of the GOP to press ahead with passing the two bills, they would withhold their support until March 24. However, that courtesy extended to the president by members of his party has not weakened the president’s determination to allow nothing to stand in the way of a deal with Iran, no matter the terms given Tehran or how long it will take. Not satisfied with being given until March 24, the White House is now using all the muscle it can muster to force the Democratic caucus to extend the delay on Corker-Menendez until the end of June when the third extension granted of the negotiations with Iran (that President Obama had promised Congress would not go past the summer of 2014) will end. The outcome of this effort is by no means certain. At the moment, every one of the 54 Republicans in the Senate has said they will vote for the bill. If the 11 Democrats who said they would hold off until March 24 stick to their promise to support the measure that will leave them two short of a veto-proof majority. That leaves the White House scrambling to pick off some members of the group of 11 as well as hoping that no other Democrat joins the GOP in support of the bill.
There are two important elements of the administration lobbying effort.
One is that although they accused House Speaker John Boehner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of injecting partisanship into the debate about Iran, it is actually only the White House that is brandishing party loyalty as a weapon in this effort. Coming into 2015, there appeared to be broad bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress behind more sanctions on Iran. Nor was there much opposition to the notion of requiring a vote on an Iran deal as would seem to be required by the Constitution as well as the fact that the sanctions that would have to be lifted in order for a nuclear accord to go forward were passed by Congress and would need to be rescinded by the same bodies that enacted them. The White House turned the Netanyahu invitation into a partisan spat by ginning up arguments claiming that the speech was an insult to the president. Though the effort to promote a Democratic boycott of the speech failed as badly as the president’s maneuvers intended to help Netanyahu’s opponents defeat him in this week’s election, the administration did succeed in persuading some Democrats to view the issue as a partisan matter rather than a consensus issue. The White House is now doubling down on this approach as March 24 approaches with an all-out lobbying effort aimed exclusively at Democrats led by senior cabinet officials. Yet what is most interesting about this campaign is that the White House is not only refusing to defend its Iran stand on its merits. It is also expecting members of Congress to undermine the Constitution’s separation of powers in order to allow the president to negotiate and implement an Iran deal without being held to account by any scrutiny. Reportedly, White House Chief of Staff James McDonough wrote to the Senate on Sunday night telling them in no uncertain terms that the president expected them to stay mum on the issue until the end of June. That means it not only wants no debate on the issue prior to the conclusion of negotiations but also no vote after a potential deal is signed. As I wrote last week, though the administration is already preparing to go the United Nations Security Council to lift economic sanctions on Iran, it is preparing to simply order non-enforcement of U.S. measures rather than ask Congress to vote to rescind laws that it has passed. Just as important, the administration is doing its best to shut down discussion on the terms it has offered Iran. Their plan is to wait until Iran agrees to measures that amount to nothing short of appeasement of the Islamist regime’s nuclear ambitions — and a clear violation of the president’s 2012 re-election campaign pledges about any deal requiring the end of Iran’s nuclear program — and then hope that the stage managed celebration of what it will spin as a foreign policy triumph will obscure any debate about the issue. It’s a smart strategy because the terms being offered Iran aren’t so much a “bad deal” as Netanyahu has rightly called it, as they are utterly indefensible. The proposed agreement that Iran has bludgeoned Obama into handing them is the product of a series of retreats from U.S. stands that will grant Western approval for Iran being left in possession of its nuclear infrastructure. The deal hinges on the notion that inspections will be stringent even though Iran has always evaded such measures previously. Just as ominous is the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency and Western intelligence agencies all think the Iranians have other secret nuclear facilities that won’t be seen. With such flimsy intelligence about Iran it’s hard to accept the president’s assurances that the U.S. will have at least year to head off an Iranian nuclear breakout. Even worse, the sunset provisions in the deal may allow Iran to eventually gain a weapon even if it does abide by the agreement. Added together with the Constitutional arguments, the terms offered Iran make it imperative for Congress to at least defend its right to vote on such a treaty even if the president is pretending it is just an executive agreement. But it will be up to Senate Democrats to show us whether they value their partisan loyalty to the president more than their devotion to their Constitutional responsibilities or the need to stop Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
U.S. to ‘Re-Evaluate’ Mideast Peace StrategyObama and Netanyahu differ starkly on Iran and Middle East peace policy
By
The Israeli election results set Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Barack Obama on a collision course in coming months over a series of high-stakes decisions on Iran policy and the Middle East peace process.
The White House upended decades of U.S. policy on Wednesday when it left open the possibility that it might not use its veto in the United Nations Security Council to shield Israel from unfavorable resolutions, such as the creation of a Palestinian state.
The dramatic shift came in response to Mr. Netanyahu’s hard political turn to the right in the final hours of the campaign, marked by an abrupt reversal of his endorsement of a separate Palestinian state. Messrs. Obama’s and Netanyahu’s tattered relationship has come to define U.S.-Israel ties. The White House now sees no chance for restarting peace talks while the two leaders remain in office.
The unexpected step by the Obama administration came as aides to the president said he is rethinking U.S. strategy on the Middle East peace process. They said it was a reaction to Mr. Netanyahu’s decisions during the campaign to oppose formation of a Palestinian state, to endorse settlement activity in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem and to warn that a large turnout of Arab Israeli voters threatened his grip on power.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the Western Wall in Jerusalem on Wednesday following his party’s election victory. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
The Israeli leader’s comments on Arab Israelis were particularly disconcerting to the White House.
“The United States and this administration are deeply concerned by divisive rhetoric that seeks to marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. “It undermines the values and democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the United States and Israel together.”
The U.S. is stressing that there will be no change in military, intelligence and security cooperation.
Danny Danon, a member of parliament from Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party, said Israel’s allies will have to respect the decision of the Israeli voters, whom he said have shifted toward rejecting the goal of a peace deal that establishes a Palestinian state.
The U.S. has several options for taking action at the U.N. Security Council, from refusing to veto resolutions related to the Palestinians to introducing a measure of its own.
“We’re not going to get ahead of any decisions about what we would do with regard to potential action at the U.N. Security Council,” said a senior administration official, adding: “There are policy ramifications to the positions that he took.”
Tzipi Livni, the No. 2 leader of the Likud’s main challenger, Zionist Union, said Wednesday that she is concerned about Israel’s path under Mr. Netanyahu.
Related Video
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud Party has scored a clear victory in the country's election. Mark Kelly reports. Image: AFP/Getty
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won a fourth term, to a mixture of skepticism and derision from Arabs and Palestinians. WSJ's Josh Mitnick reports. Photo: Getty
“We need to continue to oppose this direction that isolates Israel,” Ms. Livni said.
The Israeli election results reverberated throughout Wednesday in Washington, just two weeks after Mr. Netanyahu delivered ablistering speech to Congress urging lawmakers to block Mr. Obama from completing an emerging Iran nuclear deal.
Mr. Netanyahu’s victory could represent a major setback for Mr. Obama’s effort to keep Congress from passing bipartisan legislation that would require lawmakers to approve any final deal with Iran.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), who wrote the bill, congratulated Mr. Netanyahu on his re-election, saying “we look forward to continuing to build on our mutual interests.”
The White House didn’t offer congratulations to Mr. Netanyahu, and Mr. Obama didn't speak with Mr. Netanyahu on Wednesday. But he plans to call him “in coming days,” Mr. Earnest said. Secretary of State John Kerry called Mr. Netanyahu to congratulate him.
U.S. lawmakers expressed concern Wednesday about the poor status of relations between the U.S. and Israeli leaders.
Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) said the onus is on Mr. Obama to contact Mr. Netanyahu so that the two sides can better work together.
“He should reach out to him because there are too many critical issues that are at stake here,” Mr. McCain said.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Israeli leader needs to reverse his position and pursue a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians. “Now that the election is over, continuing to mend tensions in the U.S.-Israel relationship needs to be a priority for everyone,” she said.
Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu have always had a prickly relationship, fraught with tensions that rise and fall. But what had been a manageable state of mutual dislike became more aggravated following Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, which was arranged by Republican leaders without consulting Democrats or the White House.
While Mr. Netanyahu is considered likely to interpret the outcome of Tuesday’s election as an endorsement for his combative strategy toward the Obama administration on talks with Iran, Israel also faces deepening tension and isolation in its relations with the U.S. and Europe over his position on the peace process, according to several Israeli analysts, former officials and government advisers.
The European Union is likely to press for U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Israel over Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, a policy Mr. Netanyahu has pursued during his nine years in office, said Oded Eran, a former Israeli ambassador to the EU and Jordan.
Israel, Mr. Eran added, is also certain to face diplomatic resistance if the new Israeli parliament adopts legislation, recommended by Mr. Netanyahu, to declare Israel to be a state for Jews. No such provision currently exists, and the country’s Arab minority views the proposed change as an affront.
Sabri Saidam, an adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, said Palestinians must now respond to Mr. Netanyahu’s rejection of statehood by presenting a more united front and pressing their case before the International Criminal Court.
The authority, which governs the West Bank, applied to join the ICC late last year, drawing condemnation from Mr. Netanyahu. The move would allow Palestinians to lodge war-crimes charges against Israel over its building of settlements in the West Bank and its military operations in the Gaza Strip.
“Netanyahu’s statements regarding our future should only motivate us to continue our struggle” before the ICC and in other venues, Mr. Saidam said.
The Obama administration isn't reconsidering its opposition to the Palestinians joining the ICC, a senior administration official said. However, officials demurred when asked whether they would defend Israel against a U.N. action by using U.S. veto power, an authority Washington has wielded dozens of times in recent decades on behalf of its Mideast ally.
“We’re currently evaluating our approach,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. “We’re not going to prejudge what we would do if there was a U.N. action.”
Mustafa Barghouti, a prominent Palestinian politician, said Mr. Netanyahu’s re-election the day after he said there wouldn't be a Palestinian state while he is prime minister amounted to an abandonment of any chance for peace.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Mr. Netanyahu’s abandonment of a two-state solution threatened Israel’s future as a democratic state, a remark that elicited a withering response from Israel’s U.N. ambassador.
Mr. Obama’s position remains that a two-state solution is the best way to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace, officials said. The White House holds out little hope that, in the remaining 20 months of Mr. Obama’s term, the U.S. and Israel will be able to narrow their differences over a nuclear agreement with Iran.
Some of those close to Mr. Netanyahu said relations with the White House could be repaired.
“The coals will cool off,” said Dore Gold, a longtime adviser of Mr. Netanyahu. “The U.S. and Israel are fundamentally allies in the same war and will have to find a way to re-establish that kind of cooperative relationship.”
But no one in the Obama administration offered such a positive assessment and close observers said the opposite outcome was most likely.
“It’s going to be a very bumpy ride through the end of the Obama administration,” said David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Peace Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
4a)
Obama Lays Down Punishment on Netanyahu
by Cynthia Blank
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may have just scored a large victory at home, but Israel's relations with the United States could be on the brink.
The administration of President Barack Obama was particularly prickled by Netanyahu's assertion on Monday that he no longer supports the two-state solution as well as continued building in Judea and Samaria.
Adding insult to injury for the US was Netanyahu's comment on election day itself that Israelis must rally to the polls to combat the large number of Arabs going to vote.
As a result, the Obama administration is now carefully weighing whether to agree to a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council, which calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state and Israel's withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, along with mutually agreed land swaps.
The resolution would also oblige Israel to immediately enter into negotiations with the Palestinian Authority prior to a final peace agreement between both sides.
Several administration officials said Thursday the Obama administration may be likely to agree to the passage of the UN Security Council resolution.
"The premise of our position internationally has been to support direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians," a senior White House official told the New York Times.
"We are now in a reality where the Israeli government no longer supports direct negotiations. Therefore we clearly have to factor that into our decisions going forward."
Administration officials also noted that while the relationship between Israel and the US would remain strong, it would no longer be managed by Obama and Netanyahu.
Instead, the task of maintaining contact will be left to Secretary of State John Kerry and a handful of Pentagon officials who have a close military alliance with the Jewish state.
"The president is a pretty pragmatic person and if he felt it would be useful, he will certainly engage," another administration official said. "But he's not going to waste his time."
4b) After Netanyahu’s Victory
U.S. diplomacy needs to understand the shift in Israeli politics
The Israeli election that looked like a cliffhanger when the polls closed on Tuesday has turned out to be a decisive victory for Benjamin Netanyahu and his center-right coalition. Perhaps it’s time for Americans, especially those in the White House, to recognize this new reality of Israeli politics.
The victory is a remarkable personal triumph for Mr. Netanyahu, who is now Israel’s second longest-serving Prime Minister after David Ben-Gurion. He gambled that he could reassemble a more stable coalition, as well as by giving a high-stakes speech to the U.S. Congress two weeks before the election, and in the final days by stressing the security themes that are Israel’s abiding concern.
Opinion Journal Video
The Israel Project Managing Director of Press & Strategy Omri Ceren on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisive win over center-left opponent Isaac Herzog. Photo credit: Getty Images.
This included Mr. Netanyahu’s last-minute reversal of his support for a Palestinian state. The Prime Minister declared there would be no such state during his premiership, and conservative voters who had cooled to his leadership turned out for him.
“Based on those comments, the United States will re-evaluate our approach to that situation going forward,” said White House spokesmanJosh Earnest on Wednesday, continuing to show the pique that has defined PresidentObama’s relationship with Mr. Netanyahu. It’s as if the White House still believes that this one man is the only obstacle to peace.
While Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks were politically opportunistic, he was also expressing what has become a simple reality. The old land-for-peace diplomacy that Mr. Obama has sought to revive won’t work amid a roiling Middle East, Palestinian rejectionism fed by Iran, and a U.S. that seems to be disengaging from the region.
Israelis have shown they will take risks for peace—recall Oslo in 1993 and Ehud Barak’s sweeping concessions in 2000 that Yasser Arafat rejected—but they are not suicidal. Since those days of hope, Israelis have seen the Palestinian Authority reject reasonable land-for-peace offers and the terror group Hamas join the PA’s governing coalition. They have seen Gaza become a launching pad for missile attacks on innocent civilians.
Mr. Obama might also reflect on his own contribution to Mr. Netanyahu’s victory. Israelis surrounded by hostile nations are most likely to take risks for peace when they feel secure in America’s backing. But Mr. Obama’s looming concessions to Iran’s nuclear program have united Israelis and Arabs in opposition. The President also invested heavily in Mr. Netanyahu’s defeat, even trying to stop and then belittling his speech to Congress.
Now all of that has backfired. The first step to restoring a chance for peace should be restoring Israeli confidence in U.S. support.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment