Israel Video: Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel at the Jewish Federation of North America

Israel: Netanyahu Arrives in Paris to Criticism from French Foreign Minister
Israel: White House Gets Busted on “Private” Meeting with Netanyahu
Transcript & Analysis: Netanyahu in US – Waiting for Obama, Talking about “Small” Israel

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Tuesday, President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, spoke at the Jewish Federation of North America's annual general assembly .He shared his Jewish roots with the audience and reiterated the rhetoric of the Obama Administration on the "significance of Israel's security to United States", "Palestinian responsibilities for stabilization", and "the rights of Palestinians on settlements and final borders [on] pre-1967 lines" Then he called on both parties to the negotiation table.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmt3ElbMJJw[/youtube]

Emanuel declared:

It is only through dialogue that we can achieve the lasting peace that Israel seeks.

Make no mistake, the path toward peace is not one that Israel should be asked to walk alone. That is why the U.S. will remain actively engaged, and Israel's one true friend. The Palestinians must come to the table, recognize Israel's right to exist and reject violence.

As the president has said many times, as the president said in Cairo, the bond between the Israel and the U.S. is unbreakable. It's a bond rooted in shared interests and shared values.

Emananuel reassured Israelis that Washington's engagement with the Muslim world was not at the expense of Israel's interests:

There are those who have questioned that, as this administration has sought to be engaged in the region. There are some who suggest this implies a diminished level of support for Israel... That is not the intent and that is not the case, and never will be.

At the end of the speech, Emanuel touched the Iranian question, "Today thanks to the work of the president there is strong and growing international consensus against a nuclear armed Iran. Israel has been "a beacon of democracy in a region too often defined by strife."

Israel: White House Gets Busted on "Private" Meeting with Netanyahu

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Transcript & Analysis: Netanyahu in US – Waiting for Obama, Talking about “Small” Israel

Contrary to initial reports from the US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did get his private meeting with President Obama in Washington, with discussions on the Iranian nuclear programme and the Middle East peace talks. The White House headline statement was, "The president reaffirmed our strong commitment to Israel's security, and discussed security cooperation on a range of issues."

The problem for the Obama Administration is that journalists were unwilling to let "security cooperation" stand in place of other issues. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly was forced to hand trickier problems back to the White House:

QUESTION: On the peace process, is Senator Mitchell planning to go back to the Middle East, and what are you planning to do after the latest development on the Palestinian side?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think a lot of the focus today, of course, will be on the visit of Prime Minister Netanyahu. He’s meeting with the President tonight. We remain committed to our goal, which is the re-launch of negotiations between the sides and try and create the kind of atmosphere where these negotiations can succeed as soon as possible. As far as Senator Mitchell’s immediate plans, I’m not sure that he has plans in the very near term to return to the region. But of course, he’ll be ready to do so if that can be helpful.

QUESTION: Do you expect anything from the meeting between the President and Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. KELLY: Well, I’m not going to try and predict what – what’s going to come out of that meeting. I’ll leave that to the White House.

Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could only take refuge in repeating Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "our position has not changed":

Q - What does the White House -- well, one thing first, on the meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister tonight. Why is that closed, no press avail, the statements? What is the thinking there?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, as you know, our schedule since late last week has been up in the air. The President was supposed to speak on Tuesday to the same group that Prime Minister Netanyahu is speaking to. He obviously looks forward to sitting down with the Prime Minister tonight -- and continue to work together to address issues like Middle East peace and the threat that's posed by Iran.

Q - And on the meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I just wanted to follow up. I understand the schedule has been in flux, but why no television cameras? Is it because you don't want to highlight the fact that there's not a lot of progress in these talks so far?

MR. GIBBS: No, the President wanted to have a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. That's what we're doing. I'm sure, Ed, that the contents of the meeting generally seem to be well read out and I trust that this time will be no different.

Q - But typically the President will go on camera if he wants to highlight what is a key initiative for him, and if Mideast peace is that important you would think that he would want to do that.

MR. GIBBS: Well, like the date didn't change from Saturday night to Sunday, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the President thinks no less of the importance of the Middle East peace process on simply by subtracting one television camera.

Q - And the last thing, on settlements. Last week, Secretary Clinton was in Israel, and suggested -- she wanted to praise the Israelis for some progress on settlements. And the Palestinians were upset because the U.S. policy has been a complete freeze on settlements.

MR. GIBBS: Policy dating back several decades, yes.

Q - Right, but specifically it was emphasized in the early days of this administration. And the Palestinians felt like maybe there were some back-peddling. Can you just clear up -- there was a sense that she seemed to be shifting last week.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, again, I judge from your question -- the policy of the United States government for many decades has been no more settlements. That's not something that is new to this administration. It's something that I think has gotten disproportionate media coverage, but it's not a policy difference in this administration and previous administrations.

So now a White House which was so embarrassed about the lack of progress on Israel-Palestine that it tried to hide talks with the Israeli Prime Minister finds itself in the floodlights of more indecision and even confusion. Not that this should worry the Israelis, who eagerly leaked news of the "private" talks. After all, they got their headline that Obama was "strongly committed" to them, irrespective of any minor difficulties such as those settlements.

Coming Soon to Your Country: US Government "Hit Squads"?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On the surface this story from Danger Room seems overblown --- the US military has long had "snatch squads" to capture or kill bad guys, and they have been used extensively in Iraq in recent years. However, once the story develops, two important aspects emerge: 1) this proposal for an organised effort between US agencies has an utter disregard for the sovereignty of other countries, be they friend or foe; 2) this is no longer the snaring and/or assassination of wartime opponents but the disruption of any hostile "human network":

CIA director Leon Panetta got into hot water with Congress, after he revealed an agency program to hunt down and kill terrorists. A recent report from the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations University argues that the CIA didn’t go far enough (.pdf). Instead, it suggests the American government should set up something like a “National Manhunting Agency” to go after jihadists, drug dealers, pirates and other enemies of the state.

America’s military, intelligence and law-enforcement agencies already devote thousands of people and billions of dollars to tracking down top terrorists and insurgents. But even the most successful of these efforts — like going after Iraqi militant leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — have been “ad hoc” efforts, with units cobbled together from different corners of the government. Report author and retired Lt. Col. George Crawford instead would like to see a permanent group with clear authority, training, doctrine and technology to go after these dangerous individuals. These “manhunting teams would be standing formations, trained to pursue their designated quarry relentlessly for as long as required to accomplish the mission,” he writes.

Sometimes, that will mean operating “in uncooperative countries.” In those cases, the teams must be prepared “to act unilaterally, with no support or coordination with local authorities, in a manner similar to that employed by Israel’s Avner team in response to the Munich Olympics massacre.” (That was the controversial unit, fictionalized in Steven Spielberg’s movie, that allegedly roamed the world, assassinating Palestinian militants in response to the 1972 Olympic attack.)

The hit squads would only be one part of the manhunting agency, according to the Joint Special Operations University monograph, uncovered by Inside Defense. “Dedicated teams must be assembled, able to respond ‘on-call’ in the event of a raid on a suspect site or to conduct independent ‘break-in and search’ operations without leaving evidence of their intrusion,” Crawford notes.

Read rest of story....

The US in Afghanistan: "The Long War" Still Waits for a Strategy

Understanding “Mr Obama’s Wars”: Five Essential Analyses on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Throughout our coverage of the US intervention in Afghanistan this year, there is a recurrent theme. As I wrote for an essay for The New Americanist, published as a separate entry in September:

In such a war [as that in Afghanistan and Pakistan], the strategic ends of not only a military "victory” for US forces but political, economic, and social resolution for the populaces in those countries are peripheral; the ongoing battle is an end in itself. “War” and “national security” take over, rationalised by a permanent fear.

Which is why, when asked in the Newsweek interview, “Can anything get you ready to be a war president?”, Obama could reduce “strategic issues” to an 18-word question:

I think that it certainly helps to know the broader strategic issues involved. I think that’s more important than understanding the tactics involved….The president has to make a decision: will the application of military force in this circumstance meet the broader national-security goals of the United States?

This week Spencer Ackerman published an outstanding and troubling article picking up on this lack of a US strategy in Afghanistan: "The truth is that an inability or unwillingness to define the ends of the Afghanistan conflict has been the rule in Washington for the last eight years":

Everything about the ballroom of the St Regis Hotel indicates Washington courtliness. The entranceway is filled with glittering chandeliers and polished marble, giving way to high ceilinged majesty. Located steps away from the White House, the hotel signals power, control and spectacle. So it was the natural venue for Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, to unveil in August the dozen-member team he assembled to reverse the flagging civilian assistance efforts for the troubled region, at the moment this summer when the city began, for the first time, to question the wisdom of the war.

Holbrooke choreographed the event with his characteristic attention to atmospherics. It was moderated by John Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff who ran Barack Obama’s presidential transition. Holbrooke was flanked by his team, which represented every significant US agency and department and even the British government. The dozens of journalists in the room might not have appreciated the policy details – about contesting Pakistani Taliban short-wave radio communications; microcredit programmes for Afghan agriculture; and supporting the forthcoming Afghan elections – but Holbrooke, who has decades of experience with the elite press, evidently gambled that the more their eyes glazed over, the more they would be likely to write that the Obama administration had gathered together an impressive and united civilian team to match the military effort.

And then Holbrooke stepped on his own script. Asked how he would know when he had achieved the ultimate endpoint of the entire enterprise he’d assembled hundreds of people at the St Regis to discuss, Holbrooke replied that it was like the famously vague test enunciated by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart for determining when an artwork was pornographic. “We’ll know it when we see it,” he said. There was little chance of the event’s elaborate stagecraft being remembered after that.

********************************

The foreign-policy community in Washington is an entity powered by euphemism. As much as the fraternity of experts and analysts wishes to congratulate itself for its deep thinking and farsightedness, debate occurs within rigid boundaries that exist to make policymakers believe they can unlock every intractable problem of geopolitical management. Like all good boundaries, these both protect and corral: they insulate the members of the foreign policy establishment against embarrassment when disasters emerge, provided that no one admits a situation is indeed helpless.

Holbrooke’s awkward admission at the St Regis may have pierced this illusion of control, but the truth is that an inability or unwillingness to define the ends of the Afghanistan conflict has been the rule in Washington for the last eight years. There has never been a debate about when the United States will meet its goals in the region it entered after the September 11 attacks, just as there has never been a clarification of those goals. The Iraq war provided everyone with an alibi.

The Bush administration viewed Afghanistan as a nation-building sinkhole that distracted from the war it wanted to fight. Accordingly, the military prioritised Iraq, and so no talented officer had any incentive to innovate in Afghanistan. The Democratic Party, all the way up to Barack Obama, insisted that Afghanistan was the truly necessary war, and turned it into a cudgel to be used against the Iraq war. American Journalists made careers in Iraq and barely asked for embeds in Afghanistan; their editors ticked the box by running an annual short feature, usually about how Afghanistan was the “forgotten war”. There was no critical thought from anyone about arresting Afghanistan’s deterioration, and half-true clichés about a “Graveyard of Empires” accumulated. That was the brittle architecture underlying the national consensus about Afghanistan. Without the supporting wall of Iraq, it has now collapsed.

Out of its wreckage, Obama will make two critical decisions in the coming weeks: whether a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is suitable for the country’s woes; and whether a second troop increase in the span of a year is required to wage it. Obama’s advisers, military and civilian, are locked in a debate over how to provide an alternative to Holbrooke’s admission. Some, like Vice President Joseph Biden, contend that the complexities of counterinsurgency are both insurmountable and unmoored from the stated goal of removing al Qa’eda as a security threat. Others, like Generals David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal, contend that the United States has already spent eight years attacking al Qa’eda and senior Taliban leaders without regard for the conditions in Afghanistan and Pakistan that the militants exploit to retain support.

But there is another debate layered on top of that one, both inside the administration and across the Washington foreign-policy community in general. That debate is about the meaning of the Afghanistan war and the scope of American commitment to it. But it is also about what lessons to draw from the Iraq war, and whether they can be exported to Afghanistan.

All of the ideological attention in Washington previously committed to Iraq is now flooding into Afghanistan – or at least to the simulacrum of Afghanistan that exists in Washington. That still-congealing ideology forms the prism through which Obama’s ultimate decisions will be viewed. What was once a relatively simple (though operationally complex) mission to avenge the September 11 attacks has since been overtaken by theories about how to establish lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If those theories are correct, the United States may endure a period of bloody hardship but reap the benefits of radically diminishing the threat of al Qa’eda. If not, it will court disaster.

Read rest of article....

Israel-Palestine: Clinton's Cairo Visit Pushes Talks Into the Distance

Video & Transcript: Clinton Press Conference in Egypt (4 November)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit spoke to the public after a meeting they had with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

A day earlier, Egyptian Foreign Minister was asking for guarantees for Palestinians and was warning all sides "not to waste time", even as Clinton was playing up "unprecedented concessions" by Israel on settlements. At the conference, this translated into an amiable exchange of Gheit's satisfaction with Washington's "unchanged" position and Clinton's repetition of her rhetoric "calling both sides on the negotiation table."

On settlements, Clinton said:

I want to start by saying our policy on settlements has not changed. And I want to say it again, our policy on settlement activity has not changed. We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity.

Well, I can repeat to you what President Obama said in his speech at the United Nations and what he said here in Cairo – that the United States believes that we need a state that is based on the territory that has been occupied since 1967.

That seems a consistent position, since it is impossible to talk about a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders without the prospect of halting settlements in the West Bank. The difficulty remains, however, that Washington has put forward no possibility of pressure on the Israeli side to bring a settlement freeze and thus a move towards the negotiation table.

That difficulty may have been complicated by Clinton's description of the Goldstone Report on Gaza as an "impediment": "We’re not going to let anything deter us or prevent us from working as hard as we possibly can, going forward." Thus, far from showing how Washington could press Israel to recognise the international position, Clinton effectively set up Goldstone as another pretext for Israeli refusal or delay on negotiations: Tel Aviv can simply argue that there will be no talks without a repudiation of the report.

Clinton, offsetting these difficulties, reiterated her "unprecedented concessions" statement from Jerusalem, "What we have received from the Israelis to halt all new settlement activity –-- and I’ll repeat that again, too –-- to halt all new settlement activities and to end the expropriation of land, and to issue no permits or approvals, is unprecedented."

Someone might want to update Madame Secretary that the Netanyahu Government has already approved additional 3,000 housing units and has put an exception of "natural growth" problems to justify further construction.

So where is "unprecedented" in this picture? And where is the stimulus for both sides to come to the oft-upheld negotiation table? If anything, the prospect for talks appears to have receded. After the conference, the chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat declared that Palestinians may have to abandon the goal of creating an independent state, "It may be time for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to tell his people the truth, that with the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option."