Lawless Administration Won’t Enforce Law Against Israel Boycotts

Jonathan S. Tobin 

The signing of a trade bill last week that included provisions specifically requiring U.S. trade negotiators to oppose European boycotts of Israel was a signal defeat for the BDS — boycott, divest, sanction — movement. The willingness of a bipartisan majority of Congress to label efforts to wage economic war on the Jewish state as inconsistent with American law was especially important since it rightly dismissed any distinction between boycotts of all of Israel and those that only target Jewish communities in the West Bank and Jerusalem. But it appears celebrations about that victory were premature. Comments by State Department spokesman John Kirby let it be known that, although President Obama signed the bill, he won’t enforce it. As it has on so many other issues, such as immigration, this administration regards laws that it likes differently from those it doesn’t and will simply ignore the latter.

The statement by Kirby, which was related on Twitter by the Associated Press’ Matt Lee and picked up by Lori Lowenthal Marcus of the Jewish Press, makes it clear that laws passed by Congress and signed by the president are null and void if they conflict with administration policy. According to Kirby:

By conflating Israel and “Israeli-controlled territories,” a provision of the Trade Promotion Authority legislation runs counter to longstanding U.S. policy towards the occupied territories, include with regard to settlement activity. Every U.S. administration since 1967 — Democrat and Republican alike — has opposed Israeli settlement activity beyond the 1967 lines. This administration is no different. The U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements and activity associated with them, and by extension, does not pursue policies or activities that would legitimize them.

Kirby is right that the U.S. government has never formally recognized the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem or the West Bank. But he’s wrong to assert that President Obama’s policies are entirely consistent with that of his predecessors. This administration has made an issue of the existence of 40-year-old neighborhoods in Jerusalem in a way that is unprecedented since it treats the presence of Jews in parts of Israel’s capital as being just as illegitimate as the most remote West Bank settlement. Moreover, no previous administration has ever considered boycotts of Israel, whether of the entire country or of the half million Jews who live on the other side of the 1967 lines as legitimate. Kirby’s statement is an implicit endorsement of some Israel boycotts while opposing others.

Nor does the focus on settlements aid the cause of peace as the administration claims. Israel has already made far-reaching offers of withdrawal from the West Bank including statehood that has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinians. The refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn is the obstacle to peace, not the presence of Jews in Jerusalem or the West Bank.

As I have written previously, the notion that it is okay to boycott some Jews but not others is one that sends a dangerous signal to Israel’s enemies. Once it is deemed lawful to anathematize parts of the Israeli economy, it is a slippery slope to treating all such boycotts as legitimate. Since the original Arab boycott that sought to strangle the Israeli economy was only broken by U.S. efforts to ban trade with those who enforced the boycott, a Congressional effort to move against BDS now was entirely in keeping with longstanding U.S. policy. But since this administration is obsessed with the idea of banning settlements, it is prepared to let a Europe in which a rising tide of anti-Semitism has fueled support for BDS activity get away with such boycotts.

This is a disgrace, but any thought of a legal challenge to the decision is a waste of time. Since the U.S. Supreme Court gave President Obama the right to invalidate laws about Israeli rights to Jerusalem in a decision handed down earlier this month, he can be confident that he will be granted similar latitude to ignore anti-BDS law.

But it isn’t just friends of Israel who should be outraged about this decision. This is an administration that views law enforcement as an option, not an imperative. Just as he did on immigration, where he ignored the will of Congress and used executive orders to effectively annul legislation by not enforcing those concerning illegal immigrants, President Obama regards his personal opinion as being above the law. That is a dangerous tendency to substitute his preferences for the rule of law ought to scare all Americans, regardless of their views about trade or Israel.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/07/01/lawless-administration-israel-boycotts/

UN Gaza Report: It's A Disgrace Commission of Inquiry or Commission of Iniquity?

UN Gaza Report: It's A Disgrace

Commission of Inquiry or Commission of Iniquity?

By Walter Bingham

This program brings you an authoritative overview of the United Nations Human Rights Council's Commission of Enquiry into Israel's Operation Protective Edge in 2014 in Gaza.

You will hear a representative of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, A former legal advisor to that Ministry, the President of the International Jewish Association of Lawyers and Jurists as well as the former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan with a military assessment.


If you want to be informed about the shameful prejudged verdict of the Commission, tune in now.

Also: A contribution from the inimitable Pat Condell.

And : Music from the Band of the IDF

Total UNHRC Condemnations, 2006-2015

Israel: 61
Syria: 15
Myanmar: 12
North Korea: 8
Iran: 5
Belarus: 4
Eritrea: 3
Sri Lanka: 3
Sudan: 2
Libya: 2
Honduras: 1
Afghanistan: 0
Algeria: 0
China: 0
Cuba: 0

Equatorial Guinea: 0
France: 0
Iraq: 0
Lebanon: 0
Russia: 0
Pakistan: 0
Somalia 0
Turkmenistan: 0
UK: 0
USA: 0
Uzbekistan: 0
Venezeula: 0
Vietnam: 0
Yemen: 0
Zimbabwe: 0

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/197328#.VY124WSeDGc

Calev Myers on Understanding UN Bias Against Israel, The Jerusalem Institute of Justice

Calev Myers on Understanding UN Bias Against Israel, The Jerusalem Institute of Justice

Calev Myers on the United Nations which has made the democratic State of Israel the target of incessant condemnation while neglecting its mandate in challenging the oppressive regimes around the world. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8

Col. Kemp debunks UN report showing how it contradicts itself, lacks military expertise and completely adopted Hamas narrative.

British Commander: Anti-Israel UN Report is Dangerous

Col. Kemp debunks UN report showing how it contradicts itself, lacks military expertise and completely adopted Hamas narrative.

By Ari Yashar

British Army Colonel (ret.) Richard Kemp, former Commander of the British Forces in Afghanistan, completely deconstructed and debunked the UN report which on Monday accused Israel of "war crimes" in its fight against Hamas terrorists in Gaza last summer.

Writing in an op-ed on Thursday in the New York Times, the colonel explained how the report, led by Judge Mary McGowan Davis of the infamous Goldstone Report which likewise charged "war crimes," constitutes a threat and "can only provoke further violence and loss of life."

"The report starts by attributing responsibility for the conflict to Israel’s 'protracted occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,' as well as the blockade of Gaza," wrote Kemp. "Israel withdrew from Gaza 10 years ago. In 2007 it imposed a selective blockade only in response to attacks by Hamas and the import of munitions and military matériel from Iran. The conflict last summer, which began with a dramatic escalation in rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians, was a continuation of Hamas’s war of aggression."

The military expert noted that while the report accuses Israel of breaching international law, "no evidence is put forward to substantiate these accusations. It is as though the drafters of the report believe that any civilian death in war must be illegal."

He added that the report "is characterized by a lack of understanding of warfare. That is hardly surprising. Judge Davis admitted, when I testified before her in February, that the commission, though investigating a war, had no military expertise. Perhaps that is why no attempt has been made to judge Israeli military operations against the practices of other armies. Without such international benchmarks, the report’s findings are meaningless."

Kemp pointed out that the report claims the IDF's "use of air, tank and artillery fire in populated areas may constitute a war crime...yet these same systems were used extensively by American and British forces in similar circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are often vital in saving the lives of our own soldiers, and their curtailment would jeopardize military effectiveness while handing an advantage to our enemies."

Further, while the report condemns Israel for causing civilian casualties, it offers no suggestions as to what more Israel could have done to avoid such casualties faced with Hamas's tactics of embedding its terrorist infrastructure among civilian centers, he said.

The report "even criticizes Israel for using harmless explosive devices - the 'knock on the roof' - as a final warning to evacuate targeted buildings, suggesting that it created confusion. No other country uses roof­knocks, a munition developed by Israel as part of a series of I.D.F. warning procedures, including text messages, phone calls and leaflet drops, that are known to have saved many Palestinian lives."

In fact, international legal experts have slammed the IDF precisely for over-warning residents of Gaza and thereby harming the ability of Western democracies to fight terrorism, something Kemp has warned against as well.

Where does Hamas come in?

Kemp noted that "in an unusual concession, the report suggests that Hamas may have been guilty of war crimes, but it still legitimizes Hamas’s rocket and tunnel attacks and even sympathizes with the geographical challenges in launching rockets at Israeli civilians: 'Gaza’s small size and its population density make it particularly difficult for armed groups always to comply' with the requirement not to launch attacks from civilian areas."

He stated that the large number of Gaza residents who died last summer was not caused by Israeli policy but rather Hamas's strategy, given that the terrorist group deliberately placed its "fighters and munitions in civilian areas, knowing that Israel would have no choice but to attack them and that civilian casualties would result."

"Unable to inflict existential harm on Israel by military means, Hamas sought to cause large numbers of casualties among its own people in order to bring international condemnation and unbearable diplomatic pressure against Israel."

While the report acknowledges the IDF took steps to save lives, it "without foundation accuses 'decision makers at the highest levels of the government of Israel' of a policy of deliberately killing civilians," said Kemp. "Incredibly, she (Judge Davis) 'regrets' that her commission was unable to verify the use of civilian buildings by 'Palestinian armed groups,' yet elsewhere acknowledges Hamas’s widespread use of protected locations, including United Nations schools."

In conclusion, the colonel remarked on the potential security threats posed by the report and the actions it calls for, which could allow Hamas free reign in smuggling weapons into Gaza.

"Most worrying, Judge Davis claims to be 'fully aware of the need for Israel to address its security concerns' while demanding that it 'lift, immediately and unconditionally, the blockade on Gaza,'" he noted. "Along with the report’s endorsement of Hamas’s anti-­Israel narrative, this dangerous recommendation would undoubtedly lead to further bloodshed in both Israel and Gaza."

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/197283#.VY0FAWSeDGc

The World's Betrayal of Israel

The World's Betrayal of Israel

by Shahar Azani 

It was the month of January 2005. That Saturday night, a 17-year-old girl, by the name of Ayala Abukasis, was walking home with her younger brother, Tamir, in the southern city of Sderot in Israel. As they were walking, Ayala heard the shrill of an incoming Qassam missile fired from Gaza unto her city. She knew she had mere seconds to act, and so - without thinking twice or even trying to find shelter for herself - she hovered over her brother, covering him with her body, shielding him, as the missile hit the ground not far from where they were standing. Ayala was severely hurt and a few days later died in the hospital. The image seared into the minds of so many Israelis was that of Ayala's father and brother, standing solemnly by her grave, as her brother was blowing the Shofar (a ram's horn) in mourning of her passing.

This happened six months before Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, as Israelis have had to face the reality of missile attacks on civilians from Gaza for over a decade now. However, a hope for change emerged in that hot, humid and painful month of August 2005, when Israelis were promised a different future. Then, Israeli society had gone through the terrible ache of evacuating thousands of people from their homes in the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, in the hope of promoting the cause of peace with the Palestinians. "If only we do this", Israelis heard over and over again, "the World would know the sacrifices we are willing to make for peace. And if, G-d forbid, something bad may happen or if missiles continue to pour in on our heads from Gaza, oh then we will have the full legitimacy to fight back and defend ourselves. The World will understand".

This week the United Nations Human Rights Council's (UNHRC) Commission of Inquiry published its report on "the 2014 Gaza conflict". This was not the first report published on the situation in Gaza, an area which went from bad to worse when Hamas took it over by force in June of 2007. The UNHRC is an infamous entity when it comes to Israel. It is responsible for a series of one-sided resolutions against the Jewish State ever since the Council was established (2006) and has gone as far as to have Israel as a "Permanent Agenda Item" of the Council, an "honor" not shared by any other State on Earth. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Israel, which has seen this bias take place for such a long time, refused to cooperate with its detractors at the Council.

The current report's validity is questionable, not only because of the biased "kitchen" it was concocted in. Many questions arise from the report on a factual level: it looks into the "hostilities" only from the day after 3 Israeli teenagers were abducted and executed by Hamas terrorists. It claims Hamas was responsible for digging 14 "tunnels of terror" into Israel, when Israel identified over 30 of those. The versions even differ when it comes to the number of Israeli casualties: this stood at 73 people, soldiers and civilians, while the report put it at 67 only. The inevitable question is: if they got the basic facts wrong, what else is there in the report, which actually "holds water"?!

However, it is vital that we look beyond and take into account the wider and more profound effect of this report, in addition to the state of affairs as it pertains to "Gaza 2014". The United Nations and the international community's behavior towards Israel, manifested by such biased and one-sided reports, erodes the very foundation for any potential opportunity to bring about a peaceful resolution to the situation on the ground.

Make no mistake: this is not about Gaza 2014, 2013 or 2012. This is about the Israeli public looking the international community "in the eye" and realizing that there will never be any real support for them, even at their time of need, when missiles are targeting innocent people and Israel is going on an operation of self-defense. By putting Israel and Hamas on the same level, this international community is telling Israelis that they are on a par with a terrorist organization, infamous for blowing up buses in Israel in the course of the 90's, killing hundreds of innocent people.

Is this the international community Israelis are later supposed to trust - again - when coming to an agreement with the Palestinians?! Think again. There's still time to change course. We all deserve a chance for a better future.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahar-azani/the-worlds-betrayal-of-is_b_7646240.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Fighting the oldest hatred

Fighting the oldest hatred

Judith Bergman

Many people around the world feel that they would like to act against the current rise in anti-Semitism ‎and the boycott, divest and sanctions movement against Israel -- the latest variation on the theme of the "oldest hatred."

But if you are not a diplomat or the head of a large organization with a lot of time and money on your ‎hands, what can you do in the face of what sometimes seems an overwhelming task?

Actually, a great ‎deal.‎

Surprisingly, it need be neither very difficult nor particularly time-consuming to fight the BDS movement.‎

What is most important to keep in mind is that the aim of any anti-BDS effort, however small, is two-fold: ‎One is to change the way that Israel is perceived around the world, including in your local community. The ‎smearing campaign of Israel has been quite successful, resulting in a grossly distorted view of Israel across ‎a large number of countries, especially in the Western world. ‎

The other is to expose the hypocrisy of the BDS movement, which targets Israel, but not the countless ‎undemocratic and indeed murderous regimes around the world, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and ‎many others.‎

Another thing that is important to keep in mind: The fight against BDS should be proactive. Your efforts should never be limited to ‎reacting to a BDS campaign, although efforts against concrete BDS campaigns are, of course, crucial. The ‎aim should be to pre-empt the efforts of the BDS movement.‎

Any fight begins with baby steps. A war of this kind is never won on the first day, hardly ever in the first ‎month, and probably will not be decisively won in the first couple of years. Forget about seeing quick ‎results. You are in this for the long haul.‎

Remember that stores care very much about what their customers ‎want. There is a wealth of action waiting to be taken in the supermarkets, drugstores and other ‎shopping outlets in your area. Inquire after Israeli products regularly. Ask for Israeli fruits and vegetables ‎‎-- Israel produces excellent organic produce as well -- but do not ask just for that. Go to the shops that sell ‎beauty products, even online shops, and ask them for Israeli products. Ahava is perhaps ‎the most known of these, but Israel produces many others. Go to the kitchen appliance ‎shop and ask for SodaStream. If they do not market it, ask them to do so in the future. Get all your ‎friends and family involved, and double, triple or quadruple your efforts. Make it a whole community ‎effort of your synagogue, church or local football team.‎

If consumers demand and repeatedly inquire after Israeli products, stores will pay attention. ‎Perhaps not the first time, not even the second time, but they will not want to ignore consistent ‎demands for particular Israeli products in the long run. Demand and supply is as valid as ever in this ‎respect.‎

However, actively asking for Israeli products need not be limited to physical products. Israel has a rich and ‎exuberant cultural scene, consisting of talented dancers, musicians, singers, actors and filmmakers. At the ‎beginning of June, an attempt by British filmmakers Ken Loach and Mike Leigh along with 39 other ‎signatories to boycott the London Israeli Film and Television Festival in London was rejected by the large ‎British theater chain Curzon Cinemas.‎

‎"Curzon Cinemas hosts many festivals throughout the year, including the Human Rights Watch film ‎festival, the London film festival and festivals representing regions from around the world, including the ‎Kinoteka Polish film festival, the Romanian film festival and many more. ... We have not previously ‎considered asking questions about the funding of a festival booked at one of our cinemas, and we do not ‎consider booking a festival as any kind of political comment," said a company statement quoted by The ‎Guardian.‎

Israeli television series are among the best and most popular in the world, and several of them have been sold to ‎Hollywood, where they have been remade as American TV series. "Hatufim" was remade with a slightly different content as one of the most highly rated American TV shows, ‎‎"Homeland." The series "Betipul" was remade into "In Treatment," starring Gabriel Byrne and Dianne Wiest. ‎

Curzon Cinemas obviously did not want to lose out in this regard. ‎

You can also help bring Israeli culture -- film, television and other performing arts -- to your country and ‎your area, by actively asking for it. Theatres, cinemas, concert halls and libraries host a plethora of foreign ‎acts in their halls, and if you don't see any Israeli names there you should contact those cultural venues in ‎your area and ask them, if they would like to bring Israeli acts there -- and if not, why not? Again, by ‎creating a demand, it becomes so much easier for those venues -- such as Curzon Cinemas -- to say no to ‎the boycotters and stand by the Israeli performers that they have booked. Simultaneously, by displaying ‎more Israeli acts, these venues will be helping to promote Israeli culture abroad. ‎

You should not stop there, however. Because the aim, as mentioned before, is not only to clear Israel's ‎name of all the damage that has been done to it in the past many years. It is also to expose the ‎endless hypocrisy of the BDS movement and indeed of the stores who choose to succumb to it by not ‎marketing Israeli products. Many supermarkets, especially in Europe, sell fruits from regimes such as Iran. Ask ‎these supermarkets why they have no qualms selling produce from countries where women have no ‎rights, political prisoners are summarily executed, and homosexuals are hanged from cranes, while ‎they refuse to sell Israeli avocados or oranges.‎

Then there are those times when it turns nasty and an actual BDS campaign is launched against ‎a particular store or venue. This happens too frequently in Europe, but increasingly in other places as well. ‎It is important to stay in the know about such campaigns so that you can react if they happen. One way to ‎do that is to sign up for information from one of the many Jewish organizations, such as StandWithUs, who ‎do tremendous work to counter the BDS movement, or to ask to receive information from your local ‎Israeli embassy. They will frequently post about such campaigns, along with lists of emails and phone ‎numbers of the shop or venue in question, where one can call or send a complaint.‎

One recent example of a BDS attempt that was defeated was the Swedish supermarket chain COOP, ‎which has over 600 branches across Sweden. A few months ago, there was a BDS move to boycott ‎Israeli products in this chain, but the move was protested so vehemently by pro-Israel ‎activists, who called and threatened to boycott the chain if it continued its boycott against ‎Israel, that the boycott was abandoned. Israeli Ambassador to Sweden Isaac Bachman, who became ‎involved, said that "we didn't talk about the righteousness of Israel, rather we spoke in the name of fair ‎trade and avoiding discrimination of any state."‎

This is very crucial. Pro-Israeli activists are often drawn into long and nasty debates about who is wrong ‎and right in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is rare for these debates to have any positive ‎outcomes in the sense of making any constructive difference. The ambassador's argument -- fair trade ‎and nondiscrimination against any state -- is much more efficient, since it is so obvious. Boycotting a democratic state like Israel goes against every principle of free and fair trade.‎

There are undoubtedly countless other ways in which to counter the oldest hatred in its current form. ‎However, just choosing one of the many ways mentioned above has the potential of making a real ‎difference to Israel.

It is up to you.‎

Judith Bergman is a writer and political analyst living in Israel.


http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12973&r=1

How Obama Opened His Heart to the ‘Muslim World’

How Obama Opened His Heart to the ‘Muslim World’

And got it stomped on. Israel’s former ambassador to the United States on the president’s naiveté as peacemaker, blinders to terrorism, and alienation of allies.

BY MICHAEL OREN

Days after jihadi gunmen slaughtered 11 staffers of the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a policeman on January 7, hundreds of thousands of French people marched in solidarity against Islamic radicalism. Forty-four world leaders joined them, but not President Barack Obama. Neither did his attorney general at the time, Eric Holder, or Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, both of whom were in Paris that day. Other terrorists went on to murder four French Jews in a kosher market that they deliberately targeted. Yet Obama described the killers as “vicious zealots who … randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli.”

Pressed about the absence of a high-ranking American official at the Paris march, the White House responded by convening a long-delayed convention on “countering violent extremism.” And when reminded that one of the gunmen boasted that he intended to kill Jews, presidential Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that the victims died “not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be.”

Obama’s boycotting of the memorial in Paris, like his refusal to acknowledge the identity of the perpetrators, the victims, or even the location of the market massacre, provides a broad window into his thinking on Islam and the Middle East. Simply put: The president could not participate in a protest against Muslim radicals whose motivations he sees as a distortion, rather than a radical interpretation, of Islam. And if there are no terrorists spurred by Islam, there can be no purposely selected Jewish shop or intended Jewish victims, only a deli and randomly present folks.

Understanding Obama’s worldview was crucial to my job as Israel’s ambassador to the United States. Right after entering office in June 2009, I devoted months to studying the new president, poring over his speeches, interviews, press releases, and memoirs, and meeting with many of his friends and supporters. The purpose of this self-taught course — Obama 101, I called it — was to get to the point where the president could no longer surprise me. And over the next four years I rarely was, especially on Muslim and Middle Eastern issues.

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” Obama declared in his first inaugural address. The underlying assumption was that America’s previous relations with Muslims were characterized by dissention and contempt. More significant, though, was the president’s use of the term “Muslim world,” a rough translation of the Arabic ummah. A concept developed by classical Islam, ummah refers to a community of believers that transcends borders, cultures, and nationalities. Obama not only believed that such a community existed but that he could address and accommodate it.

The novelty of this approach was surpassed only by Obama’s claim that he, personally, represented the bridge between this Muslim world and the West. Throughout the presidential campaign, he repeatedly referred to his Muslim family members, his earlier ties to Indonesia and the Muslim villages of Kenya, and his Arabic first and middle names. Surveys taken shortly after his election indicated that nearly a quarter of Americans thought their presidentwas a Muslim.

This did not deter him from actively pursuing his bridging role. Reconciling with the Muslim world was the theme of the president’s first television interview — with Dubai’s Al Arabiya — and his first speech abroad. “The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam,” he told the Turkish Parliament in April 2009. “America’s relationship with the Muslim community … cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism.… We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith.” But the fullest exposition of Obama’s attitude toward Islam, and his personal role in assuaging its adherents, came three months later in Cairo.

Billed by the White House as “President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World,” the speech was delivered to a hall of carefully selected Egyptian students. But the message was not aimed at them or even at the people of Egypt, but rather at all Muslims. “America and Islam are not exclusive,” the president determined. “[They] share … common principles — principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.” 

Wi 

With multiple quotes from the Quran — each enthusiastically applauded — the president praised Islam’s accomplishments and listed colonialism, the Cold War, and modernity among the reasons for friction between Muslims and the West. “Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims,” he explained, in the only reference to the religious motivation of most terrorists. And he again cited his personal ties with Islam which, he said, “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.”

These pronouncements presaged what was, in fact, a profound recasting of U.S. policy. While reiterating America’s support for Israel’s security, Obama stridently criticized its settlement policy in the West Bank and endorsed the Palestinian claim to statehood. He also recognized Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, upheld the principle of nonproliferation, and rejected former President George W. Bush’s policy of promoting American-style democracy in the Middle East. “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons,” he said. “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.” In essence, Obama offered a new deal in which the United States would respect popularly chosen Muslim leaders who were authentically rooted in their traditions and willing to engage with the West.

The Cairo speech was revolutionary. In the past, Western leaders had addressed the followers of Islam — Napoleon in invading Egypt in 1798 and Kaiser Wilhelm II while visiting Damascus a century later — but never before had an American president. Indeed, no president had ever spoken to adherents of a world faith, whether Catholics or Buddhists, and in a city they traditionally venerated. More significantly, the Cairo speech, twice as long as his inaugural address, served as the foundational document of Obama’s policy toward Muslims.

Whenever Israeli leaders were perplexed by the administration’s decision to restore diplomatic ties with Syria — severed by Bush after the assassination of Lebanese president Rafik Hariri — or its early outreach to Libya and Iran, I would always refer them to that text. When policymakers back home failed to understand why Obama stood by Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who imprisoned journalists and backed Islamic radicals, or Mohamed Morsi, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and briefly its president, I would invariably say: “Go back to the speech.” Erdogan and Morsi were both devout Muslims, democratically elected, and accepting of Obama’s outstretched hand. So, too, was Hassan Rouhani, who became Obama’s partner in seeking a negotiated settlement of the Iranian nuclear dispute.

How did the president arrive at his unique approach to Islam? The question became central to my research for Obama 101. One answer lies in the universities in which he studied and taught — Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Chicago — and where such ideas were long popular. Many of them could be traced to Orientalism, Edward Said’s scathing critique of Middle East studies, and subsequent articles in which he insisted that all scholars of the region be “genuinely engaged and sympathetic … to the Islamic world.” Published in 1978, Orientalism became the single most influential book in American humanities. As a visiting lecturer in the United States starting in the 1980s, I saw how Said’s work influenced not only Middle East studies but became a mainstay of syllabi for courses ranging from French colonial literature to Italian-African history. The notion that Islam was a uniform, universal entity with which the West must peacefully engage became widespread on American campuses and eventually penetrated the policymaking community. One of the primary texts in my Obama 101 course was the 2008 monograph, “Strategic Leadership: Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy,” written by foreign-relations experts, many of whom would soon hold senior positions in the new administration. While striving to place its relations with the Middle East on a new basis, the authors advised, America must seek “improved relations with more moderate elements of political Islam” and adapt “a narrative of pride in the achievements of Islam.”

In addition to its academic and international affairs origins, Obama’s attitudes toward Islam clearly stem from his personal interactions with Muslims. These were described in depth in his candid memoir, Dreams from My Father, published 13 years before his election as president. Obama wrote passionately of the Kenyan villages where, after many years of dislocation, he felt most at home and of his childhood experiences in Indonesia. I could imagine how a child raised by a Christian mother might see himself as a natural bridge between her two Muslim husbands. I could also speculate how that child’s abandonment by those men could lead him, many years later, to seek acceptance by their co-religionists.

Yet, tragically perhaps, Obama — and his outreach to the Muslim world — would not be accepted. With the outbreak of the Arab Spring, the vision of a United States at peace with the Muslim Middle East was supplanted by a patchwork of policies — military intervention in Libya, aerial bombing in Iraq, indifference to Syria, and entanglement with Egypt. Drone strikes, many of them personally approved by the president, killed hundreds of terrorists, but also untold numbers of civilians. Indeed, the killing of a Muslim — Osama bin Laden — rather than reconciling with one, remains one of Obama’s most memorable achievements.

Diplomatically, too, Obama’s outreach to Muslims was largely rebuffed. During his term in office, support for America among the peoples of the Middle East — and especially among Turks and Palestinians — reached an all-time nadir. Back in 2007, President Bush succeeded in convening Israeli and Arab leaders, together with the representatives of some 40 states, at the Annapolis peace conference. In May 2015, Obama had difficulty convincing several Arab leaders to attend a Camp David summit on the Iranian issue. The president who pledged to bring Arabs and Israelis together ultimately did so not through peace, but out of their common anxiety over his support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and his determination to reach a nuclear accord with Iran.

Only Iran, in fact, still holds out the promise of sustaining Obama’s initial hopes for a fresh start with Muslims. “[I]f we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion,” he told the New Yorker, “you could see an equilibrium developing between [it and] Sunni … Gulf states.” The assumption that a nuclear deal with Iran will render it “a very successful regional power” capable of healing, rather than inflaming, historic schisms remained central to Obama’s thinking. That assumption was scarcely shared by Sunni Muslims, many of whom watched with deep concern at what they perceived as an emerging U.S.-Iranian alliance.

Six years after offering to “extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist,” President Obama has seen that hand repeatedly shunned by Muslims. His speeches no longer recall his Muslim family members, and only his detractors now mention his middle name. And yet, to a remarkable extent, his policies remain unchanged. He still argues forcibly for the right of Muslim women to wear — rather than refuse to wear — the veil and insists on calling “violent extremists” those who kill in Islam’s name. “All of us have a responsibility to refute the notion that groups like ISIL somehow represent Islam,” he declared in February, using an acronym for the Islamic State. The term “Muslim world” is still part of his vocabulary.

Historians will likely look back at Obama’s policy toward Islam with a combination of curiosity and incredulousness. While some may credit the president for his good intentions, others might fault him for being naïve and detached from a complex and increasingly lethal reality. For the Middle East continues to fracture and pose multiple threats to America and its allies. Even if he succeeds in concluding a nuclear deal with Iran, the expansion of the Islamic State and other jihadi movements will underscore the failure of Obama’s outreach to Muslims. The need to engage them — militarily, culturally, philanthropically, and even theologically — will meanwhile mount. The president’s successor, whether Democrat or Republican, will have to grapple with that reality from the moment she or he enters the White House. The first decision should be to recognize that those who kill in Islam’s name are not mere violent extremists but fanatics driven by a specific religion’s zeal. And their victims are anything but random.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/19/barack-obama-muslim-world-outreach-consequences-israel-ambassador-michael-oren/?wp_login_redirect=0