WarSclerotic

Critics: Obama Contradicts Himself on Middle East Strategy Says he toppled Gaddafi to avert a humanitarian crisis, but failed to do the same in Syria

BY: Daniel Wiser
December 22, 2015 5:00 am

Source: Obama Contradicts Himself on Middle East Strategy

Recent remarks by President Obama highlight his conflicting approach to dictators in the Middle East, critics say, opening him to charges of an inconsistent and contradictory strategy toward regimes and humanitarian crises in the region.

In his final press conference of the year Friday, Obama defended his efforts to topple former Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 as part of an international coalition. Gaddafi was “a dictator who was threatening and was in a position to carry out the wholesale slaughter of large numbers of people,” he said. He added that the United States and allied nations worked “to avert a big humanitarian catastrophe that would not have been good for us.”

“Those who now argue, in retrospect, we should have left Gaddafi in there seem to forget that he had already lost legitimacy and control of his country, and we could have—instead of what we have in Libya now, we could have had another Syria in Libya now,” he said.

Unlike in Libya, Obama has declined to apply substantial pressure on the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad throughout four years of civil war, critics say. Despite declaring in 2011 that, “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” Obama chose not to launch airstrikes against the Assad regime after it used chemical weapons in 2013, an apparent violation of a “red line” set by the president.

Additionally, the administration scrapped its train-and-equip program for Syrian rebels in October after acknowledging that it had been a failure and had only yielded a few battle-ready fighters.

As a result, analysts say Syria has become the locus of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises in decades, with more than a quarter of a million people dead and millions of refugees fleeing to neighboring countries and Europe. Amid the chaos of the civil war, ISIS established a base of operations in the country and used Assad’s brutality as a recruiting tool to attract foreign fighters and disillusioned Sunni Muslims in the region.

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said that Obama has prioritized rhetoric over action in Syria.

“There is a window of opportunity when resolving any crisis, but rather than pass through that window, Obama prefers simply to admire his own reflection,” Rubin said. “Had he acted early in Syria, he could have contained or resolved a problem before it metastasized.”

The White House declined to comment on Obama’s divergent approaches to Libya and Syria.

Libya, too, has devolved into a civil war after Gaddafi’s fall and become a safe haven for ISIS. The terrorist group has established a significant presence in parts of the country with about 5,000 fighters.

Obama admitted on Friday that his administration should have “some accountability for not moving swiftly enough and underestimating the need to rebuild government [in Libya] quickly.”

The president’s mistake in Libya, Rubin said, was not attempting to prevent a humanitarian disaster but rather failing to help Libya establish security and governing institutions after Gaddafi’s ouster.

“Obama’s real failure was to refuse to secure Gaddafi’s weapons depots,” he said. “The instability across the Sahel can be traced to Obama’s fateful decision to lead from behind.”

The United Nations Security Council announced  Friday it had endorsed a new plan to end Syria’s civil war, including a new constitution and elections in 18 months. However, the fate of Assad under such a transition remains unclear.

Obama said at the press conference that “Assad is going to have to leave in order for the country to stop the bloodletting.” Yet there might be more wiggle room for the authoritarian leader. A political transition should aim to assure Russia and Iran—two staunch allies of Assad—that “their equities are respected” in Syria, Obama said.

’ Mahmoud Abbas proclaims the ‘Palestinian Authority’ no longer exists — it has officially been replaced by the “State of Palestine.”

By: Jewish Press Staff

Published: December 22nd, 2015

Source: The Jewish Press » » Abbas: ‘Palestinian Authority No Longer Exists’

Photo Credit: Palwatch.org

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas proclaimed Monday at a news conference in Athens that the entity formed under the internationally recognized Oslo Accords — the Palestinian Authority — no longer exists; it has officially been replaced by the “State of Palestine.”

Following his meeting with Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, Abbas said:

“Regarding this issue of a passport under the name Palestine State, we are about to proceed to the passport replacement and the issuance of a new passport within one year or even less.

“We have already changed all documents issued by ministries and public services and they now bear the name ‘State of Palestine,’ he said.

“We no longer accept from anyone to use the name ‘Palestinian Authority.’”

The declaration made by Abbas — if taken seriously — could have some unique ramifications for those who live within PA-controlled territories and are “citizens” of those areas.

Israeli security personnel quietly support the entity in some delicate situations and basic energy infrastructure such as electricity, water and gas is provided through Israeli cooperation. Tax monies are also collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and transferred to the entity on a monthly basis, with a great hue and a cry if there is any delay.

If in fact Abbas now runs an entirely new nation, clearly there is no longer any need for any of this: all Israeli services can and may be cut off, possibly instantaneously.

Any aggression against Israel emanating from its territory could be construed as an act of war, perhaps justifying a “proportionate response.” How soon then might it be until Israel really invaded and re-occupied the territory that Arab instigators whine about as “occupied” ?

Meanwhile, although the Greek parliament voted unanimously on Tuesday to approve a resolution recognizing the Palestinian Authority as a new independent Arab country, the vote does not bind its government in any way.

There will be no formal recognition by Greece, according to a statement released by the Greek foreign ministry, so as “not to disturb good relations with Israel.”

Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras recently met with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, in addition to his meeting with Abbas in Ramallah. The meeting between Tsipras and Netanyahu ended with both in good spirits.

“We must underline the imperative need to begin a substantial, a credible peace process, but with a clear political target,” Tsipras told reporters Monday after meeting with Abbas.

“A process that will give again hope to the Palestinian people, but also to the Israeli people, for a better future, for a peaceful coexistence of two peoples in the same region.”

More than half of PA citizens (60 percent) polled in September (1,397 adults) by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, however, clearly support stabbing attacks and a violent intifada. Moreover, 66 percent believe an uptick in violence will serve them well.

In addition, more than half (54 percent) expressed outright opposition to the so-called “two-state solution” that has been consistently forced on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority by the United States and the European Union for decades. Even more – 70 percent – are opposed to a single-state “solution” in which Arabs and Jews will coexist with equal rights.

The bottom line: Palestinian Authority Arab citizens have not wavered one iota from their original belief in 1948 that the State of Israel must be annihilated and the Jews either exterminated or otherwise somehow removed from the region. The only question in their minds is how best to accomplish that goal.

For anyone outside of this region to delude themselves into thinking otherwise, and to form any foreign policy involving Israel’s interests based on such an error would be foolhardy and utterly dangerous for all Israeli citizens, be they Jews, Christians or Muslims.