Israel News | Zionism Israel Center | Zionism History | Zionism Definitions | ZioNation | Forum | Zionism FAQ | Maps| Edit

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Historian and author Michael Oren to be Israel's US Ambassador

Michael Oren is possibly the best man for the job of Israel ambassador to the United States, though he has no diplomatic experience. Media reports variously portray Oren variously as a "neocon" or a peacenik. Obviously, both assessments could not be correct, and either one is an oversimplification of a complex three-dimensional personality. Oren is a good speaker as well as being an accomplished historian. He has written "Six Days of War" about the Yom Kippur war and  "Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East." The first book demonstrated a familiarity with how Israel "works" as well as an understanding of how to present it to a foreign audience. The second demonstrated an understanding of how American diplomacy "works" and of evolving American understanding of the Middle East. In other words, Oren speaks both Israeli and American. In the possibly difficult days ahead with the Obama administration, Oren might be best qualified to win American public support for Israeli positions and to put them in langauge that American officials can understand and identify with, as well as being able to read and translate the United States for the Netanyahu government.
However, promise is one thing and fullfilment is another. It would no doubt have been better if Oren had served in some lesser diplomatic post before being tapped for the most critical diplomatic posting for Israel, at a most critical time.
Last update - 19:37 02/05/2009       
Netanyahu candidate Michael Oren tapped as U.S. envoy
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Dr. Michael Oren is set to be appointed Israeli ambassador to Washington after Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman added his endorsement over the weekend.
Oren, who was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's candidate for the position, received the endorsement following separate meetings with Netanyahu and Lieberman on Thursday.
The cabinet must now approve the appointment at its weekly meeting Sunday to set the decision in stone. Oren would then take up the position before Netanyahu's expected meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on May 18 or 19.
Oren, a visiting Georgetown University professor, said in a lecture there last month, "The only alternative for Israel to save itself as a Jewish state is by unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank and evacuating most of the settlements."
He beat several high-profile candidates for the position, including ex-Likud MK Zalman Shoval, who served twice before as ambassador to the United States, Dr. Dore Gold, who served as Israel's ambassador to the United Nations from 1997 to 1999, and Alon Pinkas, who served as Consul General in New York from 2000 to 2004

Labels: , ,

Continued (Permanent Link)

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Iran: Obama is going full speed in neutral

The New US Administration: Confusion and Indecision on Iran

INSS Insight No. 95, February 18, 2009
Landau, Emily B.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama indicated his willingness to engage with Iran over the nuclear issue without preconditions; in other statements he maintained that he would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The urgency of the Iranian nuclear challenge – emphasized by Iran's steady progress not only on uranium enrichment but on missile development as well – means that the Obama administration will have to move beyond general guidelines and make a concentrated effort to consolidate its policy on Iran as quickly as possible. And yet, one month into his presidency, Obama's advisors are saying that this is likely to take weeks if not months to achieve. Not only does the administration seem in no hurry to address this pressing foreign policy challenge, but statements that are emerging in the meantime are underscoring a message of confusion and indecision.

In discussing his approach to Iran in an interview one week into his presidency, President Obama repeated the image that he had offered in his inaugural speech of an outstretched US hand of diplomacy to countries like Iran, if they agree to "unclench their fist." In other words, this is an offer of engagement on condition that Iran soften its policies. But is Obama referring to the nuclear issue?

Taken together with later statements, there is a growing sense that Obama is actually attaching more importance to initiating dialogue with Iran than to resolving the nuclear crisis. The idea that the US must engage Iran directly was originally promoted in the immediate context of the need to confront Iran's nuclear ambitions, but for Obama this original objective appears less and less at the forefront. In fact, repairing relations with Iran is sounding more like the primary aim, whereas discussing the US's displeasure with Iran's nuclear activities is relegated to one of the points on the agenda of prospective talks. In his first White House press conference on February 9 Obama said that his national security team is reviewing Iran policy and looking for areas where he can have constructive dialogue with Iran so that they can begin to engage. The New York Times pointed out that while Obama noted that support for terrorist organizations is unacceptable and that nuclear development would spark further destabilizing proliferation in the Middle East, he did not repeat campaign statements that he would never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or the capability to build one.

Obama gives the impression that he wants to be both soft and tough on Iran at the same time, but this is not likely to work. Moreover, the most urgent order of business with regard to Iran is the nuclear crisis and finding the most effective way to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear state. In this sense, beyond the image of an extended hand, what does Obama have in mind in for Iran? More importantly, what is the nature of the (un)clenched fist, and at what point will this accompanying condition to the extended hand come into play in the overall process of trying to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear state?

Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton have in recent weeks been a little clearer on this issue. From statements issued by these officials, the unclenched fist seems to refer at least to Iran halting its uranium enrichment activities. Clinton clarified this point when she attempted to reassure European allies that the US did not intend to abandon previous multilateral efforts with regard to Iran. She noted that "President Obama has signaled his intention to support tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, but if Tehran does not comply with UN Security Council and IAEA mandates, there must be consequences." In his address to the Munich Security Conference, Biden made a statement in the same vein, adding that Iran must abandon not only its nuclear ambitions, but its support for terrorism as well.

But even if there is some measure of clarity regarding what Iran must do to unclench its fist, there is still the thorny issue of timing. In this regard, neither Clinton nor Biden provides any direction: they both mention that the US will be tough if Iran doesn't comply with certain conditions, but say nothing about the more precise mechanics of implementing the conditionality. Will the US enter negotiations and then assess Iran's degree of cooperation, or will it insist on indications of a changed Iranian attitude before entering negotiations? When will the US get tough? These crucial questions remain unanswered.

Because Obama insists on an approach that is different from the Bush administration, anything sounding like a "precondition" to dialogue will probably not be embraced, even though Clinton's promise to uphold previous multilateral efforts seems to imply continued adherence to the precondition that Iran cease uranium enrichment activities. After all, the Europeans have been as clear on this point as the US since the summer of 2006. If the new administration is in fact tending toward the "wait and see" approach, this could have dire consequences for any negotiation with Iran: while it may sound reasonable to first demonstrate accommodation – the outstretched hand – and then move to harsh measures only if Iran leaves no choice, in practice this will be very difficult to pull off. Once the sides become engaged in dialogue, making the call that "Iran is not serious" is not as easy as it might sound. Iran is very adept at going through the motions of dialogue, including sporadic indications of a more cooperative attitude, in order to buy time for its nuclear program but with no intention of actually moving toward a deal. In this way, "wait and see" negotiations can actually help Iran achieve its goal.

In dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions, attention must also be directed to Iran's calculations, and in particular to the sobering reality that Iran has no rational reason for being any more willing to negotiate seriously with the US today than it was when negotiating with the EU-3 in the past. The only factor that might change Iran's calculation is if it begins to feel very uncomfortable with the status quo, and this is where pressure comes into the equation. The toughness that the US needs to demonstrate should not be understood as an alternative to dialogue, rather as a step toward more effective engagement with Iran on the nuclear issue. The logical sequence for those facing Iran is first to create tremendous pressure – through strong sanctions and other financial measures as well as credible threats and indications of a willingness to apply military measures – and then begin negotiations. A much less confident Iran is likely to be much more amenable to actually reaching a deal.

Labels: , ,

Continued (Permanent Link)

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Obama is a what?

President Barack Obama has been billed as all sorts of evil things. Here's the latest.
Barack Obama is a  Communist    Muslim   Zionist.
Last update - 13:29 04/02/2009       
Top Iranian official: Zionists brought Obama to power
By Reuters
A representative of Iran's supreme leader said Barack Obama taking office as U.S. president did not mean Tehran's ties with Washington would change, a news agency reported on Wednesday.
"The Zionists brought Obama to power to help America pass through its current challenges," said the representative to the Revolutionary Guards in northwestern Zanjan province, cleric Hojjatoleslam Ali Maboudi.
"Any government has 'red lines' and our 'red lines' are rejecting the arrogant policies of America and the Zionist regime," he said.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has ultimate authority over policy in the Islamic Republic, has yet to comment on Obama's presidency or his offer to extend a hand of peace if Iran "unclenched its fist."
The leader has representatives to many institutions and regions. Though not a perfect guide, their comments can give an indication of views prevalent among Iran's leadership.
"Opposing the Zionist regime and defending oppressed people are among the pillars of the Islamic revolution and Iran and America's relationship will not change because of Obama taking office," Maboudi said, Fars News Agency reported.
Iran does not recognize Israel's right to exist and officials often refer to the country as the "Zionist regime". Officials reflect the view that U.S. ties with Israel as so close that their policies are indistinguishable.
Other Iranian officials have set tough conditions for opening dialogue with Washington after 30 years of hostility. But analysts say such terms could be more of a gambit to buy time for the leadership to determine how to proceed.
The United States has long accused Iran of undermining peace in the Middle East by backing what Washington calls "terrorist" groups like Palestinian Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah. Tehran says the groups aim to free Palestinians from Israeli occupation.
Khamenei may have the final say in policy, but analysts say he tends to reach decisions by seeking a consensus among influential politicians, clerics and powerful state bodies.
The president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is only one among those voices. He has said the United States must withdraw its troops from bases around the world and must also apologize for decades of "crimes" against Iran. Neither is likely to [be] met soon if at all.
Obama's administration has offered direct talks but warned of more pressure if Iran does not halt work the West says is to build nuclear bombs. Tehran denies any such ambitions.

The Guards are an ideologically driven force set up after the 1979 Islamic revolution to defend the system of clerical rule, with a separate command structure to the regular military.
While fiercely loyal to the system, analysts say political views in force are not always homogenous but mostly reflect hardliners passionately opposed to Washington and the U.S. influence ejected in 1979 when the U.S.-backed shah was ousted.

Labels: , ,

Continued (Permanent Link)

Subscribe to
email newsletter for this site and others

Powered by

Feedblitz subcription
To this Blog only

You can receive our articles by e-mail. For a free subscription, please enter your e-mail address:

Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Web Logs & Sites

This Site

Zionism & Israel
Zionation Web Log
IMO Web Log (Dutch)

ZI Group
Zionism-Israel Pages
Israël-Palestina.Info (Dutch & English)
Israël in de Media
MidEastWeb Middle East News and Views
MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log

Brave Zionism
Israel: Like this, as if
Israel & Palestijnen Nieuws Blog

Friends and Partners
EinNews Israel
Israel Facts
Israel Proud Adam Holland
Middle East Analysis
Irene Lancaster's Diary
Middle East Analysis
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Israel Facts (NL)
Cynthia's Israel Adventure
Jeff Weintraub Commentaries and controversies
Meretz USA Weblog
Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers
Simply Jews
Fresno Zionism
Anti-Racist Blog
Sharona's Week
Z-Word Blog
Jewish State
Take A Pen - Israel Advocacy
Zionism on the Web
ZOTW's Zionism and Israel News
Zionism On The Web News
ZOTW's Blogs
Christian Attitudes
Dr Ginosar Recalls
Questions: Zionism anti-Zionism Israel & Palestine
Southern Wolf
Peace With Realism
Sanda's Place
Liberal for Israel
Realistic Dove
Blue Truth
Point of no Return
Christians Standing With Israel
Christians Standing With Israel - Blog

Encylopedic Dictionary of Zionism and Israel
Middle East Encyclopedia
Zionism and its Impact
Zionism & the creation of Israel
Zionism - Issues & answers
Maps of Israel
Christian Zionism Resources
Christian Zionism
Albert Einstein
Gaza & the Qassam Victims of Sderot
Zionist Quotes
Six Day War
Jew Hatred
Learn Hebrew
Arab-Israeli Conflict
International Zionism

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Israel Boycott
Boycott Israel?
Amnesty International Report on Gaza War
Boycott Israel?
Dutch Newspaper Reporting: A Study of NRC Handelsblad
Hamas (Dutch)
Dries van Agt (Dutch)
Isfake lobby

At Zionism On the Web
Articles on Zionism
Anti-Zionism Information Center
Academic boycott of Israel Resource Center
The anti-Israel Hackers
Antisemitism Information Center
Zionism Israel and Apartheid
Middle East, Peace and War
The Palestine state
ZOTW Expert Search
ZOTW Forum

Judaica & Israel Gifts
Jewish Gifts: Judaica:
Ahava Products

Elsewhere On the Web
Stop the Israel Boycott


Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

RSS V 1.0

International Affairs Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory