Posted in Peace Plans, tagged Benjamin Netanyahu, Gaza, Israel-Palestine Talks, Israeli Settlements, John Kerry, Kalandia, OPT, Oslo Accords, PA, peace talks, Qalandiya, Syrian civil war, Tzipi Livni, UNRWA, UNWRA, West Bank, Yitzhak Molcho on August 28, 2013 |
1 Comment »
This piece was originally published at LobeLog
If John Kerry wants to find a silver lining in the heavy criticism US foreign policy has faced due to the events in both Egypt and Syria, he might find it in, of all places, the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
The secretary of state embarked on the talks by saying there would be no discussion of them in the media; that any reliable information about them would only come from him; and that he would not talk about them. Given the history of leaks in such talks and the widespread coverage generated by any negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, this seemed like a very ambitious promise. But amid an imminent attack on Syria after the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime and the controversial, tacit US support for a coup in Egypt that turned out to be a lot more bloody than Washington probably expected, attention has been completely drawn away from the Israel-Palestine conflict. (more…)
Read Full Post »
Posted in International Law, Syria, tagged AIPAC, Assad, Barack Obama, China, Cold War, European Union, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, international law, Israel, Israeli Settlements, Obama, OPT, Russia, Sergei Lavrov, Syria, Syrian civil war, Syrian opposition, Syrian rebels, UN, UN Security Council, United States, US Policy on Israeli Settlements, USSR, West Bank on August 26, 2013 |
Leave a Comment »
My latest piece at LobeLog, where I frequently write on US foreign policy, examines the inadequacy of the current system of international law. It has gotten so ineffective that it is now more hindrance than help. Syria shines a spotlight on the problems.
Read Full Post »
Posted in US-Israel Lobby, tagged AIPAC, Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, diplomacy, Ed Royce, eliot engel, Iran, Iran diplomacy, Iran nuclear, Iran nuclear capability, iran nuclear program, Iran nuclear talks, Iran nuclear weapon, Iran sanctions, Israel, Israel Lobby, Lindsey Graham, OPT, P5+1, Robert Menendez, Sanctions, Sense of Congress resolution, sense of the congress joint resolution on Israel, sequester, Trita Parsi, US-Israel relations on March 3, 2013 |
1 Comment »
This piece was initially published at LobeLog. Please check it out, as it’s an indispensable source for foreign policy news and analysis. You won’t regret it!
The annual Israel-Congress orgy dubbed as the AIPAC Policy Conference kicked off today. It might just as well be called the War on Iran conference — that’s sure to be the
President Obama speaking at a previous AIPAC conference, He won’t be there this year.
issue that dominates the proceedings. The US-Israel relationship is taking the second spot. And the Palestinians? More than ever before, they will be invisible.
There are a few sessions at the conference that deal with Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in very general terms. But Iran will be the focus, as evidenced by related bills which AIPAC had some of its most loyal members of Congress introduce in advance of their lobbying day. Those bills work to give Israel a green light to attack Iran if it feels the need to and puts the “special relationship” between the US and Israel on paper.
Last week a Senate resolution was introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The two senators are widely known as AIPAC favorites and have led bipartisan actions like this in the past, working with AIPAC quite closely to develop legislation favorable to the lobbying organization. The resolution states that if Israel decides to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon, this would be considered an act of self-defense and that “…the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel…”
The bill is a “sense of Congress” resolution, so it is not binding; hence the word “should” rather than “will” is used. Still, it is a very clear expression that the Senate expects and desires that President Obama provide a full range of support to Israel in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. It certainly sends a signal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he will have Congress behind him if Obama tries to restrain Israel from taking such a step. While the bill’s wording clarifies that it should not be understood as a declaration of war in the event of an Israeli attack, a commitment to military support of Israel in the event of a purely Israeli decision to attack Iran could well amount to the same thing. (more…)
Read Full Post »