SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Syria Burns on Obama's Back Burner

SEPTEMBER 14, 2012

Syria Burns on Obama's Back Burner

BY LEON WIESELTIER

JUSTICE IS NOT what Washington customarily delivers, but I do not believe I have ever experienced the futility of moral argument in the capital more completely than in the discussion, or rather the disappearance of the discussion, about Syria. There is not even off-the-record anguish. If there was a debate in the councils of American power, it left no mark on the disposition of American power. For almost two years, as a rebellion against tyranny has been met by a tyrant’s unappeasable appetite for atrocity and has devolved into a miserable sectarian war, as Assad uses air power against his own population, destroying Aleppo as he will surely destroy Damascus, the president of the United States has been satisfied to watch and to wait. Even by Obama’s standard of detachment, the moral inertness—and the strategic inertness too, since it is Iran’s interests that he is protecting by doing nothing—has been shocking. We have chosen to have no effect upon a crisis that will have an effect upon us. So far 25,000 people have been killed, 250,000 refugees have fled into Syria’s panicked neighbors, and 1.2 million people, more than half of them children, have been displaced inside Syria. Al Qaeda has found a new front. Everything that the administration said would happen if we intervened happened when we did not intervene; and all the warnings of the wild Bush-like trigger-mad hawkish crusading idealists came true. Diplomacy has been employed cynically as an instrument of prevarication, first with the Annan mission and now with the Brahimi mission, and most bizarrely in the president’s willingness to have Russia and China, those exemplary states, determine the contours of an American response. He is asking to be blocked. Obama has exposed the timidity, the relinquishment of position, at the heart of the multilateralism fetish: when we cannot act with others, we will not act alone. Never mind that action is desperately needed; and never mind, too, that we would not act alone, because others, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states, are waiting only to join us. The willing are there, but we will not form the coalition. Instead Obama proclaims that until Assad turns to his chemical weapons the United States will let him be. Yet all this is stonily beside the point. Anger is fruitless, and argument, and eloquence. The conversation is over.

 

ONE THING, THOUGH: after Syria, enough preening about Libya. The principles, after all, are the same. The Libyan intervention was a splendid parenthesis in an administration that has otherwise been indifferent or incoherent or incompetent about democratic revolution and humanitarian emergency. And now the vile murder of our ambassador to Libya—the overthrow of a dictator emancipates forces of darkness as well as forces of light; the birth of freedom is not yet the birth of democracy—will further alienate the administration from the struggle. Michael Lewis’s sharp and ideologically uninflected report on “Obama’s way” in Vanity Fair reveals many things about the president—his behavior in basketball is downright allegorical: “... he slides in to take charges, passes well, and does a lot of little things well. The only risk he takes is his shot, but he shoots so seldom, and so carefully, that it actually isn’t much of a risk at all ...”—but it is largely a study of Obama’s understanding of the American action in Libya. It is impossible not to read these pages in the harsh light of Syria. “We knew that Qaddafi was moving on Benghazi, and that his history was such that he could carry out a threat to kill tens of thousands of people,” the president told Lewis. “We knew we didn’t have a lot of time.” Also “we knew that a no-fly zone would not save the people of Benghazi.” But then William Daley “had a point: who gives a shit about Libya”? And yet, Lewis writes, “of the choice not to intervene [Obama] says, ‘That’s not who we are,’ by which he means that’s not who I am. The decision was extraordinarily personal.” But still the president was looking to “cabin our commitment.” Finally it was “one of those 51–49 decisions.” Obama’s mental diligence is one of his strengths, and he is right to be wary of impulse, but he is a little too infatuated with complexity. Stirring leadership is not a descent into simplicity. But whatever his reason, Obama did the right thing in Libya. It is therefore imperative to note that Syria is considerably more significant than Libya, and suffering considerably more. And to note also that it is not a coincidence that the only Arab country that elected a secularist is the only Arab country in which the West intervened. The contested nature of secularism in that society, and in many other Muslim societies, is one of the great challenges of our age, and there are brave and rational and decent people in those societies who deserve our help, who are our natural, because philosophical, allies.

 

DOES THE UNITED STATES have a foreign policy? Of course it does. It never doesn’t. But what is it, exactly? It cannot consist in the absurd peregrinations of Hillary Clinton’s plane. (According to the State Department’s website, where you can play “Where is the Secretary?,” the travel stats of the wandering icon as of this writing were these: Total Travel Time: 1,951 hours, or 81.3 days. Total Mileage: 897,951. Countries Visited: 110. Travel Days: 376.) Our foreign policy is doctrine-free, and maybe even concept-free. It seems to consist in a series of local and regional managerialisms, a lot of problem-solving in which not many problems are solved. It is thoroughly lacking in boldness and flair. I see mainly diffidence and drift. Most of all, American foreign policy is on the back burner. The immediate reason for this is the election and its season of risk-aversion. History must be patient. Aleppo must wait on Ohio. The president is running on foreign policy, but it is all in the past. Bin Laden is still dead and the war in Iraq is still over, but what about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Mali, Sudan, China, Russia, Venezuela, and Europe? The pollsters say that Americans do not care about foreign policy now; but the wanness of our foreign policy only encourages Americans in their pullback mood, their spirit of extrication. There is the isolationism of the mind, which can be engaged by persuasion, and the isolationism of the heart, which is harder to reach. Even at 8.1 percent unemployment, America has historical responsibilities, which are also historical privileges. Even on the back burner, the world burns. 

This article appeared in the October 4, 2012 issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 77 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

77 comments

It's wonderful to talk about human rights but power politics is also part of the mix. If the West won't become involved in toppling Assad our chances of helping to shape Syria's future will be nil. The result will be another Muslim Brotherhood led country. Still it amazing that the Syrian military which has been killing tens of thousands of Syrians 9with the help of Iran and Hezbollah) are not being attacked more vociferously by the left which is obsessed with a few settlements in the West Bank ( I would like to see them dismantled also) but can't be bothered to speak out on Syria. There are more flagrant examples of hypocrisy, but not many.

- arnon1

September 17, 2012 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The secularists in Syria ARE Assad's government. The secularists in Turkey ARE the opposition to Erdogan. The secularists in Saudi Arabia are living in London. I recently read Lewis on Obama in VF. Libya IS different from Syria. Have no idea why Leon W uses Lewis' account to equate the two. Might want to expand his reading list to outside his comfort range.

- K2K

September 24, 2012 at 12:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blather from a professional pundit who is far better at using language to tsk tsk than to actually analyze and recommend what we should do. And what exactly, should we do in Syria, Leon, besides criticize Obama, who has demonstrated a pretty good track record and judgment in dealing with multiple foreign policy challenges to date? Is it possible that he actually knows what he's doing, possibly picking the least worst of some lousy alternatives? Oh, sorry, that's asking you to do some actual, serious intellectual heavy lifting. Maybe we should be more assertive and aggressive in Syria; maybe we shouldn't. It's a legitimate issue to discuss and debate, taking into account the many pros, cons and imponderables at play. But for LW to mistakenly cite Lewis, equate Obama's approach to basketball with his approach to foreign policy, and mechanically extrapolate and equate our Libya policy to what we should do in Syria is a testament to how ill-suited poor Leon is to writing about foreign policy. Please stick to literary criticism, or whatever it is that you know something about. With a good number of fine writers and analysts in its stable, time for TNR's editors to put tired old types like LW out to pasture.

- Thunderroad

September 24, 2012 at 1:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A good hint of what you think should be done in Syria would help, Leon.

- scrubby

September 24, 2012 at 1:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am with K2K on this one. I was about as strong as supporter in vigorous intervention in Libya, after all the lines of warfare were clearly laid out, we knew where the Gadhafi loyalists were and where the rebels were. This is not true in Syria. As to what Obama is doing, I suspect there is a lot more going on here than Leon admits. After all the rebels in Syria have effectively taken over nearly half the country as it is. Assad's days are numbered. Certainly we are arming the rebels to the extent that they are now able to shoot aircraft out of the sky. At most I could envision a no fly zone, but I suspect Obama does not want to give Assad an excuse to widen the war into Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. He is being bled dry all the while imagining he can win. An intervention on our part would disabuse him of that notion. I suspect when he becomes desperate enough to try to widen the war, it will be too late for him. And frankly I don't believe that if Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia really wanted US intervention we would have said no. Death by a thousand cuts is better for Israel and Turkey.

- blackton

September 24, 2012 at 1:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"“If the West won't become involved in toppling Assad our chances of helping to shape Syria's future will be nil. The result will be another Muslim Brotherhood led country.” So, openly help topple Assad, and then make sure the Muslim brotherhood doesn’t participate in the subsequent freedom of political ideas? In other words, the West should rig their choices. So much for your Western values. Btw, arnon, many voices on the left, including yours and a few others here, are indeed attacking the Syrian govt. As to obsession, I notice that you seem obsessed with attacking the left yourself. Hardly do you miss an opportunity for a gratuitous attack on them.

- scrubby

September 24, 2012 at 1:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Our foreign policy is doctrine-free, and maybe even concept-free. It seems to consist in a series of local and regional managerialisms, a lot of problem-solving in which not many problems are solved." Yeah, and let's leave it that way for a while. I'm tired of America being expected to solve the world's problems. And then we don't do it anyway, even when we try. Most of the people in the Middle East are living in the Middle Ages, if not the Dark Ages. How was Assad allowed to stay in power for so long? Because Syrian citizens were willing to put up with a mass murderer over them for 12 years. I read an article recently about how the sanctions in Iran are seriously taking effect. The country's whole economy could crash in as little as 4 months. What are the citizens saying they will do to get the nuts out of power who are causing them great hardship in their lives? Nothing. They hate the food and other shortages, but they love the knout--no matter what some of them tell Western journalists. They are terrified of existential freedom. There's only one reason dictators remain in power for extended periods--the majority of the citizenry loves the boot heel on its neck. In the Middle East it starts with an oppressive religion. I have no doubt that Assad's successors will have boot heels of their own. And even if they don't, they will be so corrupt, like the new leaders in Iraq, that they might as well be tyrants. As Leon might say, corruption has its own tyranny. What can Obama possibly do about an insoluble problem like the one in Syria? Invade and start another multi-trillion-dollar war? Yeah, let's borrow the money from China. I'll go get my flag.

- magboy47.

September 24, 2012 at 2:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not the intervention, but what is certain to follow. The Syrian civil war is a sectarian war, a war that Assad cannot win, not when the Shia comprise such a small percentage of the Syrian population. Yes, Assad can prolong the inevitable, his own Republican Guard and the highest ranking members of the Syrian Army being almost entirely Shia (Alawite), but they are a small minority, and the Sunni conscripts in the Army (yes, the vast majority of Sunnis in Assad's Army are conscripts) are defecting in increasing numbers. Why not intervene and accelerate the end of the conflict? Because intervention will not end the conflict but spread it throughout the middle east, as Shia from Iraq (yes, our friends) and Iran come to the aid of their Shia brothers in Syria and to fight the Sunni enemy from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni dominated states as well as the majority Sunni population in Syria. Of course, a regional war isn't what the interventionists fear; it's what they want.

- rayward

September 24, 2012 at 6:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

[Full interview, with 37 linked sources well worth the read] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NI22Ak01.html INTERVIEW "On Syria and way beyond" By Lars Schall AsiaTimesonline "One of Europe’s most outstanding experts on the Middle East, Professor Guenter Meyer, addresses in this exclusive in-depth interview for Asia Times Online the Syrian civil war and its international dimensions. ... Lars Schall: Professor Meyer, since our perceptions are framed by the media, how do you feel about the coverage of the conflict in Syria in the Western media? Guenter Meyer: My perceptions are not only framed by the media, but also by my own experience in Syria and by contact with Syrians, other Arab experts and political activists of the Arab spring. The information I receive from these sources and also from Arab news media covers a much wider range of views and assessments than the rather one-sided reporting in the majority of the Western media. LS: What kind of things do you have to criticize in particular? GM: Until recently mainstream reporting in most Western media was clearly biased. It focused mainly on the distinction between the "bad" Syrian regime, which has to be toppled, and the "good" opposition, which has to be supported because it is fighting against a corrupt, authoritarian and brutal government. This perception has changed gradually during the past few months. More and more media are reporting about the conflicting interests of the highly fragmented oppositional groups as well as about the atrocities of the rebel groups and their crimes committed against the civilian population, especially against Alawites but also against Christians. ..."

- K2K

September 24, 2012 at 8:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama and Hillary Clinton are in the pockets of the Muslim Brotherhood. And there's little space between Obama and Turkish prime minister Erdogan. President O is not interested in creating a democratic secular Syria. I would not trust him to create and implement policy there. Wieseltier has a touching faith in America's will and ability to right things. What is already happening: The Alawites will retreat into their own fortified canton around Latakia. The Kurds will achieve virtual autonomy, a pretext for Turkish meddling. The Christians will be out of luck; they had the most interest in a secular state. The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran will fight over the rest of Syria. Given a chance, they will both use Syria as a platform for attacking Israel.

- amidut

September 24, 2012 at 8:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama and Hillary Clinton are in the pockets of the Muslim Brotherhood. And there's little space between Obama and Turkish prime minister Erdogan." Amidut, I won't ask you for your evidence backing these assertions, because I know you don't have any.

- Curran1

September 24, 2012 at 9:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The principles, after all, are the same." But the circumstances are different. Next. "The Libyan intervention was a splendid parenthesis in an administration that has otherwise been indifferent or incoherent or incompetent about democratic revolution and humanitarian emergency." Evidence? Yawn.

- icarus-r

September 24, 2012 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not that it gives me any special authority, but as I'm sitting in Jerusalem as I write this and five days ago I looked across into Syria from the Golan Heights at a border post about 60km from Demascus. It is interesting to note that the news here in Israel is all about the power vacuum in the Sainai since Mubarak got the boot. (A few days ago 3 terrorists crossed into Israel and killed an IDF soldier, and no one really thinks that Cairo any longer has control of the Sainai Bedouins.) Not that I favor Assad remaining in power, but I'd like to know just what LW would like Obama to do about Syria and who would he ask him to support? Sunni nationalists, many of whom learned the art of making IEDs blowing up American HUMVEEs in Iraq? The Kurds? The Jihadists? What kind of government does LW imagine will replace Assad's? How does he suppose that American military intervention will act to bring about a post-Assad government that either the US or Israel will find satisfactory? Also, why do LW's moral sensibilities seem to be exercised only with regard to Arab countries? Robert Mugabe has waged a war against his own people and economy that is at least as deadly as Assad's if much quieter. Why is LW not screaming for US military intervention to end Mugabe's deadly reign?

- AaronW

September 24, 2012 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why can't TNR find writers more qualified than Leon W to write about Syria? He sees a very bad situation, throws up his hands, and demands that Obama do something. However, he has not given us any thoughtful analysis of the problem and absolutely no clue as to the proposed solution. Just a lot of verbal wanderings here and there without structure or even serious thought. His writing here reminds me of spaghetti thrown at a brick wall. To put it simply, he has zero expertise and offers zero solid information or analysis. Historical note: Leon W was one of those who advocated an invasion of Iraq. I think that is evidence of his "expertise" on matters relating to the Middle East. Question for Leon W: What is stopping Turkey and Saudi Arabia from intervening? That is their part of the world and they have serious military capabilities. Question for Leon W: If the US were to intervene militarily, would you volunteer to serve on site in some capacity, putting your life at risk along with the young Americans who would be involved? I did not see you doing that in Iraq -- but it is not too late, even at your age. The experience might be enlightening.

- PeteBeck

September 24, 2012 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Not that I favor Assad remaining in power, but I'd like to know just what LW would like Obama to do about Syria and who would he ask him to support?" Whatever it is, we will have a better chance of influencing the outcome if we help the opposition in some way now. If we ( US and NATO) don't get involved now the chances of either a an extremist Sunni victory or a bloody civil conflict will be almost certain.

- arnon1

September 24, 2012 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Scubby, what the hell do you think "the left' is?

- arnon1

September 24, 2012 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This article is dated more than a week ago. Where has TNR been hiding it? Leon Wieseltier is always worth reading." malahat, Whenever you see a new Current Issue image on the home page, click on Full Contents below the image, and you will get all the new articles, including Leon's, when they are first available. It just took TNR a while to get Washington Diarist to the home page. I disagree with you about Leon always being worth reading. He's weak on foreign policy, like Marty was. Way too much idealism. And disappointed idealists can be grouchy, to say the least. Trying to fix a problem in the Middle East is like trying to fix a badly corroded pipe--as soon as you stop one leak, another one springs up somewhere else. Thunderroad, I, too, had a problem with Leon comparing Obama's basketball-playing style to his foreign policy style. It's quite silly. This crazy world, which has almost no rules and a minimum of hundreds of players, is a bit more complicated than a basketball game with ten players at most and strict rules, even in its street version.

- magboy47.

September 24, 2012 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...if it wasn't for Leon Wieseltier's TNR foreign policy articles, there wouldn't be any TNR foreign policy articles at all." You're right about that, malahat. I would like to see foreign policy articles about Russia, Germany, and China, to name a few countries. An article about the relationship between North and South Korea would be interesting, too.

- magboy47.

September 24, 2012 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Whatever it is, we will have a better chance of influencing the outcome if we help the opposition in some way now. If we ( US and NATO) don't get involved now the chances of either a an extremist Sunni victory or a bloody civil conflict will be almost certain." It is not clear to me how US/NATO intervention can avert either extremist Sunni victory or a civil war. Do you propose that NATO insert an army to oust Assad, annoint a USA-approved successor government and disarm/suppress the multiple factions inevitably left out of that government? How big an army would that require, and for how long would it need to be in place in Syria? Short of such a massive intervention, what else would you propose? An air war as in Lybia? That might hasten Assad's fall, but how would it serve the goal of winning the aftermath or preventing civil war? Or do you suppose that we should selectively arm and train opposition factions, never minding about how poor our ground-level intelligence is and how hard it will be both to pick the good guys and the likely winners or about how much this begins to look like 1980s Lebanon? I'm not opposed in principle to intervention, but no proponent of intervention in Syria has yet shown me any clear plan or been able to explain how such a plan would serve American interests or really any party's interests other than the generic human interest of "stopping the killing." You'll forgive me if I look on proposals to stop killing with further killing with a jaundiced eye. I've worked with several Iraqis, all Shia, all with family still in Iraq. They all hated Saddam Hussein, and yet to a person they have each said to me that they wish the US invasion had never happened. Now, I see the difference with Syria: all on their own the Syrians have moved 2/3 of the way towards the state of affairs in post-Baathist Iraq, but it seems to me that with or without US boots on the ground, post-Baathist Syria is likely to look a lot like it's neighbor to the southeast.

- AaronW

September 24, 2012 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: when you wrote "RPT is dead...", I assume you meant the UN "Responsibility to Protect"? which is usually abbreviated as R2P. Turkey and the Saudis/GCC are already far more involved in arming the opposition. I keep reading that the Muslim Brotherhood is the greatest threat to the House of Saud's legitimacy, so I assume Saudis are funding their Salafists. yeah, great choice for the rest of the world. I do not see any good choice for the USA, under any president - we are stuck with our NATO ally Turkey, and the longstanding defense agreements with the GCC. And Jordan has almost as many Syrian refugees as Turkey. The USA is stuck on the Sunni side of the schism, and suddenly Egypt is the wild card. (and where is the protest about the alleged buying of 14-year old Syrian girls by men from the GCC?) One point missing from Lewis's VF Obama and Libya story was that, for once, the USA felt obligated to support NATO allies France and UK in the UN & Arab League sanctioned Libya R2P. I thought that was terrific - and not "leading from behind". But, Syria is a totally different situation - the flood of refugees are not going to become boat people seeking sanctuary in the EU as was the fear with Tunisia and Libya. One of the most ironic aspects of Syria today is that it was the Sunni Caliphate based in Damascus that defeated Ali on the fields of Karbala, starting the Shi'a-Sunni schism. another random thought - yes, it would certainly make it a bit more likely I shall renew TNR.com if they went back to regular coverage of foreign issues, especially those not in the "Middle East". How about an update on the Berbers of Libya? What about Sudan's assault on the Nuba? oh, not ME? Anyone wonder how China and Japan are faring with their fight over those islands? What about some exposure for Unrepresented Nations and Peoples (unpo.org)? My favorite is that both the Azeris of Iran and the Azeris of Azerbaijan have official movements for self-determination. ok, my real favorite is the Afrikaaners also are member of UNPO :) btw, no palestinians belong to UNPO.org because you have to renounce violence.

- K2K

September 24, 2012 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Whatever it is, we will have a better chance of influencing the outcome if we help the opposition in some way now. If we ( US and NATO) don't get involved now the chances of either a an extremist Sunni victory or a bloody civil conflict will be almost certain." arnon1, what makes you think we're not helping some elements of the opposition now, whether through intelligence, funding, facilitating coordination, training, etc.? Sometimes low-key, understated (or even unstated) policies are the most effective ones.

- Thunderroad

September 24, 2012 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Do you propose that NATO insert an army to oust Assad, annoint a USA-approved successor government and disarm/suppress the multiple factions inevitably left out of that government? " I haven't proposed anything specific, yet. We need to be smart about it. If we can identify pro-democratic groups we should support them. We can establish no fly zones and we can offer logistical help to those forces we decide to back. Doing nothing is the worst option.

- arnon1

September 24, 2012 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I completely agree with malahat and magboy on the dearth of good foreign policy pieces in recent months. As far as Syria goes, smarter people than me have laid out the argument effectively above. I would only add that the call to bring Turkey on board as a key ally had me scratching my head in bafflement, as I recall well that not so long ago Obama was excoriated in this journal for being so dumb as to think one could work with this menacing anti-Israeli Turkish government; liaising with Erdogan over anything was just another bit of typical Obama cluelessness. Today, however . . . .

- ironyroad

September 24, 2012 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have no opinion about what can be done in Syria, but I have to comment on this from icarus: ""The principles, after all, are the same." But the circumstances are different. Next." Isn't a principle supposed to be the same, a standard for behaviour or judgment or policy that remains the same THOUGH circumstances change? Reminds me of the joke my millionaire boss once told: I have principles, Sir, you don't like my principles? All right, I have other principles. I suppose icarus will claim that this is the thinking of a seasoned pragmatist. Yet isn't it the quintessential definition of a double standard? And aren't we supposed to resist the temptation to apply double standards lest we be called hypocritical? Perhaps icarus will try to provide a different kind of rationale without having to resort to a double standard.

- noga1

September 24, 2012 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad, you seem to do a lot of head scratching lately. But you will do your scalp a favour by consulting your good friend ick on the matter. He has a good response to such questions as yours: ""The principles, after all, are the same." But the circumstances are different. Next." I'm sure you will agree with the stunning truth of his view on principles and circumstances.

- noga1

September 24, 2012 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Silly silly silly. The comments and LW article. I have read them and got nowhere. Good for killing an hour or so. They know nothing. Ignorance a la USA style.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 24, 2012 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat, I don't know if we are developing some serious communication glitch between us, but I'm getting less and less able to see what riles you. My mention of Israel, as seemed plain to me, was simply to point up the marked oddness of Obama being attacked for engaging with Erdogan (on the grounds of Turkey's anti-Israel slant of the last couple of years) and then later being attacked for failing to engage with Erdogan. Does that make sense? Noga, I also did not understand what icarus meant.

- ironyroad

September 24, 2012 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I still amaze myself when I continue to read Leon's posts. Maybe it's because I forget about the self-induced indigestion that sets in after reading some of these opinion pieces. Maybe I need that gut jolt to get past the food coma after lunch. But then I read this sentence by Leon and remember that the reason is I just like watching train wrecks. Even the prose versions. "Never mind that action is desperately needed; and never mind, too, that we would not act alone, because others, Turkey and Saudi Arabia and some Gulf states, are waiting only to join us. " See Leon, as the self-appointed TNR sage of middle east policy you write this statement somehow wishing that it were true. What is stopping Turkey, Saudi Arabia other unnamed Gulf States you presume are just waiting to join us in yet another Middle East strong-man toppling exercise from actually acting on their own accord? Is it that they, like Israel as it relates to Iran, look to the U.S. to offer a large umbrella to act without having to take any responsibility or action on their own accord? No one is stopping Turkey, Saudi Arabia and some Gulf States from creating a coalition army to solve the Syrian issue but I suspect is that none of them want to be involved in a civil war that, for all intents and purposes, is an actual civil war of attrition between Assad and the Syrian people. Instead, Leon and the lame-duck states of the ME would have the US lead with boots on the ground, planes in the air and materiel support - foot the bill, spill the blood, take the heat for failed state status without they themselves having any skin in the game. The ME needs to figure out how to solve its own internal problems of how to move forward into the 21century and become democracies that can contribute something to the world besides terrorism. It's a wonder more people don't listen to Leon when it comes to foreign policy decisions because if they did, we'd be occupying every square inch of the globe.

- singlspeed

September 24, 2012 at 2:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Syrian reporting in Arab sources  Syria in al arabiya http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/23/239720.html Syria in al jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201292416810902152.html

- JAIMECHUCH

September 24, 2012 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Arab media don't give a dam about Syria. It's just one of those passing flings.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 24, 2012 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was exaggerating somewhat with the term "riled."

- ironyroad

September 24, 2012 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Arab media don't give a dam about Syria. It's just one of those passing flings." And this observation argues for American intervention how? Or maybe you're not arguing for intervention, Jaime. What is your point other than that we here are all a bunch of ignoramuses and not worth your time?

- AaronW

September 24, 2012 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm getting tired of this in Wieseltier: every once in while crank out the high dudgeon and say nothing concrete. Different point: why's this mysterious: ..."The principles, after all, are the same." But the circumstances are different. Next.. Assuming the principles are the same, their application will differ in different circumstances and those applications will yield different results. Nothing mysterious there.

- basman

September 24, 2012 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman: thanks. Indeed. Irony: It is not enough to say that the principle is the same. Principles are fine, but when they translate into action, they must take account of the context in which they are applied. The circumstances in Syria and Libya are different; so even if you start with the same principle (R2P, for example), the policy reaction to the different circumstances could be different. I was not in favour of unilateral intervention in Libya and in fact left TNR at the time because of its idiotic and blind drumbeats of war. When Syria erupted, I read the articles - and the comments - closely, and saw much the same silliness from TNR and much the same arguments from the commenters, with the sole exception of Blackton, who changed his views on intervention - on the basis of different circumstances. Do I consider myself a proponent of the principle of R2P? Yes. Do I think there is a justification, moral and legal, for multilateral and/or unilateral intervention in the abstract? Yes. Do I think that the US should intervene in any part of the world, or the Arab/Muslim world, on the basis of its own assessment of what constitutes R2P? No. Does this mean I have a double standard? Only those who believe in abstractions over circumstances would believe that. In this, as in most matters of public policy, I rely on Burke: "Circumstances give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind."

- icarus-r

September 24, 2012 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And I was against it before I was for it.

- ironyroad

September 24, 2012 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was and remain, sceptical, about the intervention in Libya.

- noga1

September 24, 2012 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"with the sole exception of Blackton, who changed his views on interventio n - on the basis of different circumstances" (emphasis added) Malahat: Blackie was strongly in favour of unilateral intervention in Libya and is now strongly against the same in Syria. Most people who were pro-Libyan intervention are pro-Syrian intervention; most people who were sceptical then, remain sceptical now. Blackie stands out because of the strength of his convictions then, and his scepticism now. My perspective - and I think both roid and Irony shared it - was that any intervention should be multilateral, legal and without boots on the ground, on the basis of both principle (R2P) and tactical considerations. Once the UNSC Resolution came, and as long as the intervention remained limited, I supported it. There is no such Resolution for Syria, the tactical and strategic considerations are vastly different from those in Libya, and the stakes not yet as stark as in Benghazi - they may yet get there, but we are not there yet. That is to say, the same principle (R2P), applied in different circumstances, could yield different results. Sorry for any confusion.

- icarus-r

September 24, 2012 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

fwiw, the reason why Turkey, and the GCC need the USA in any military coalition, even a no-fly zone, because Syria has highly developed anti-aircraft defenses. The USA has the full range of assets to deal with that. (does anyone have reference to a serious analysis of the F-35JointStrikeFighter program?) The USA is rightly resisting. And much more certain that Syria does have "opposition" fighters who would love to own a Stinger. It seems Greater Kurdistan may be one of the outcomes, regardless of who does what. But I bet the Circassians are the minority very, very privately freaking out.

- K2K

September 24, 2012 at 6:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with icarus points on R2P and Libya. and see no way it could be applied to Syria.

- K2K

September 24, 2012 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat: thanks - glad to be back. Irony: PRICELESS. Then there is this comment (my favourite): "I'm surprised he didnt realize there would be explosive decompression, he should be familiar with that issue based on his campaign the last 3 weeks." This is Romney's laser scanning moment ...

- icarus-r

September 24, 2012 at 6:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So the principle of humanitarian intervention is circumsribed by political interests, and not necessarily humanitarian concerns for the safety of a population that has come under attack from its own leadership. So it's no longer a matter of humanitarian assistance but hard political realities. Doesn't that rather void the principle of RTP from any substantial meaning? To me Syria and Libya appear very much similar in circumstances. In both cases, there was great doubt about who the rebels were and what their objectives are. Yet in Libya this doubt was not surmountable while it is in Syria. Why? Is it because Syria is an Iranian ally? Is it because the American administration still considers Assad a kind of reformer and the lesser of the many evils? Is it because there is a sizable Christian minority in Syria that will be at grave risk of retaliation from the rebels? Or is it because Syria is to Obama what Iraq was to Bush, and he finds it absolutely necessary to demonstrate how HE does things differently. Of all the above, and maybe other considerations I'm not aware of, the only plausible reason for not intervening is the plight of the Christians. As far as I'm concerned, and from what I read on my favourite blog from the Arab street, Assad's capacity for brutality and atrocities is more than well matched by the rebels. So, they sort of cancel each other. And the innocent on both sides as usual keep getting slaughtered. BTW I have a question: Has anybody derived any reassurance from the way the Benghazis retaliated against the Salafists for the storming of the American Embassy and the killing of the ambassador? Wouldn't it be far more reassuring if the protest did not involve the storming of the Salafists' HQ and setting on fire their cars or whatever? To me it seems more like the regular way these people settle their accounts.

- noga1

September 24, 2012 at 6:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, this isn't an attempt to sound condescending or whatever you may perceive, but I don't know why you never mention the most obvious comparative factor that hangs over facing intervention. If you say that the two countries are "very much similar in circumstances" then the counter-argument is embedded in one pretty simple comparison, to wit: Libya: population 5.5 million; land area 1.8 million sq miles; crumbling Soviet-era air defense capability Syria: population 22 million, land area 185,000 sq miles; relatively advanced capability Those facts taken together suggest how the basic tactical landscape for the Libya operation was vastly more favorable to US/NATO forces than Syria would be. Add to that the explosive nature of Syria's location with borders to Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, and Turkey. Add to those in turn the nature of Syria's foreign relations and the pretty obvious desire of the Russians and the Chinese not to repeat their "mistake" of March 2011. The resulting equation would not be an easy one for any US administration.

- ironyroad

September 24, 2012 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, ironyroad, if you weren't so concerned to sound condescending you would have noticed that I considered a very different set of circumstances from which to look at the countries and whatever it is you are saying here does not really take on my contention that if the principle is humanitarian then ANY consideration whatsoever that is not humanitarian in nature, such as American interests and such, are simply irrelevant. I don't know how the innocents in Syria are to be helped but at least I'm saying that openly and I'm not trying to conceal the very simple and raw issue of genocide under a barrage of learned words and casuistrous wriggling to try to square the circle. Either there is a principle of RTP or there is not.

- noga1

September 24, 2012 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While we may be concerned about the murder of innocents in Syria, let's first recognize that we are not doing the murder in this vicious civil war. And war being a messy business, especially this war, it's not likely that our troops can surgically distinguish between the innocent and culpable in a complex heavily armed, often urban, alien environment like Syria. And I don't trust the Obama (or Romney) administration's ability to clearly define the objectives and the bad guys. I think it would be immoral to abuse the trust and patriotism of our service men and women by sending them into this hell. Our troops are being abused, sent on too many tours of duty, into places where many of the natives don't appreciate their sacrifice. We could destroy the US Army with endless wars like this.

- amidut

September 24, 2012 at 9:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But if ". . . and such" includes a consideration that could determine the success or failure of a humanitarian action, then it would be, even in the context of an honorable principle, either stupid or criminal or both not to consider it. The US isn't the world's policeman and relations between nation-states aren't simply the global equivalent of the street that the patrol officers keep their eye on, ready to jump out with the force of the law behind them if a crime is in progress.

- ironyroad

September 24, 2012 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If there are so many exceptions and limitations on the principle of RTP then why even call it a principle?

- noga1

September 24, 2012 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AaroW You are right. But it is good entertainment. The fact is that nobody in the media either USA or Middle East is interested about Syria and such. Our candidates never mention it. But again they never mention poverty and such. I gave you the references from AlArabiya and AlJazeera, Syria is just a passing reference. The Arab League new envoy is just saying more of the same, that Assad is a bad boy. And so what. It would be ludicrous for the USA to intervene, or Israel . It sounds more like those fighting Assad are a bunch of non identifiable desorganized non-ideological rascals. So you can see Assad staying put for a long time. Carnage is the rule in this region. It is true and very sad. Martin Peretz was right, life is cheap and unimportant. How sad it is. How sad.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 24, 2012 at 11:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If there are so many exceptions and limitations on the principle of R2P then why even call it a principle?" Noga, that is a very good question. Perhaps because a part of humanity would like that principle to be an active force in the world, and having gotten there one doesn't want to just jettison it in the face of difficulty. And it is very difficult to step beyond the even older principle of the sovereignty of nation-states.

- ironyroad

September 24, 2012 at 11:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is interesting is that in Syria we don't hear those suicide bombings happening day in day out in Iraq and in Pakistan. Even Afghanistan.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 24, 2012 at 11:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is an accounting of how many people have been killed in Syria. Is there an accounting of how many people have died in the daily suicide bombings in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan ? Is there any discussion about these killings? Nops. It is the daily routine. Weird very weird. The reality is that we intervened in Iraq, and still are there. And we are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The conclusion is if we were to intervene in Syria, God forbide, the killings will be transformed into suicide bombings. Then nobody would talk about them. Sarcastic reality.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 24, 2012 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And let's not forget the killings with our drones in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Our drones kill alqueda terrorists, but there are civilians killed as collateral. It was brought to my attention by a taxi driver that was from Pakistan and had family and friends in Pakistan. He said tha God will get back at the Americans. What else could he do. But maybe a suicide bomber could do it. I guess you win some, you loose some. Intervention in Syria would be madness. Pure madness.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 25, 2012 at 12:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's wrong with TNR? They already did away with the "most commented article" function and now they seem to have even nixed the right-left preview banner for finding several currently active articles. I was only able to get back here by using the "Search TNR" function. Are they deliberately trying to get rid of us?

- ironyroad

September 25, 2012 at 1:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I second you. Weird weird weird. Good bye TNR.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 25, 2012 at 2:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Funny. I was just going to comment that it seems to me as if the new TNR administration is intent on discouraging long discussion threads by making it difficult to follow up, and forcing us to look at the new articles that appear hourly instead. They want this place to be fast food drive-by, not a pub:) There is a philosophy of media behind this. Swallow, don't chew.

- noga1

September 25, 2012 at 7:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: try bookmarking the page (add to Favorites in IE) when you want to get back to the comment thread. I think thr.com has an out-of-touch web design team these days, but the ending of the right-left preview banner is a mistake. I had to Login today, and that banner was on that page, but not when you come back to the homepage. Glitch? Cyber-twiddling? You captured the differences between Libya and Syria, and the issues on R2P quite well, but, alas, the USA is still the world's policeman. I would add that R2P is also a 'thin edge of the wedge' dilemma because of two failed R2P initiatives in the past 2-3 years (I have lost track). Turkey tried to get NATO to join in Turkey's 'fight' with the PKK. And the palestinians tried to get R2P invoked by the UN to take down the IDF, so to speak. Even in Libya, the opposition went brutal with Qaddafi's black constituency - the native Touregs who had allied with Q, and Q's African mercenaries. Also, Lebanon's Civil War was recent enough for most to figure that will be Syria's fate, with or without intervention. Be interesting to hear if Obama defends freedom of expression and belief in his UN GA speech today, with words that are crystal clear.

- K2K

September 25, 2012 at 7:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

another worthwhile read: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/world-according-syrian-kurdistan Totten's blog is covering Syria and Libya quite well, but this interview with a Syrian Kurd is delicious: "...MJT: What do you and most Syrian Kurds think of Israel? If the Israelis offered to help, would you accept it? Sherkoh Abbas: I have said this many times: Israelis never killed or slaughtered Syrian people the way the current regime is doing. We have no issues with the Israelis. We want to solve our problems peacefully through dialogue and negotiations. Israelis, like Kurds, are targeted for elimination by the tyrannical regimes in the Middle East, so we are natural allies. We ask Israel to help the Syrian people—all the Syrian people—and to use its political influence in the world to support the revolution and promote democracy in the region. We need all the help we can get from every country willing to help us. Look, 400 Syrian men, women, and children were just slaughtered by the regime. Aside from the Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood, who wouldn’t want help from Israel? The Israelis don’t kill people arbitrarily or oppress anyone in Syria the way most Arab governments do. For fifty years Middle Eastern dictatorships turned Israel and the West into excuses to oppress people. We need to move beyond these failed dictatorial regimes and construct decentralized democratic systems where both minorities and majorities enjoy peace and freedom. ..."

- K2K

September 25, 2012 at 7:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: new TNR.com needed the space for the Obama campaign ads...

- K2K

September 25, 2012 at 7:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"NR wants its opinions to be a monologue, not a conversation." Maybe they noticed that more readers come here for the comments, not the posts that serve as pretext for the comments. So they wish to limit, if not completely eliminate, the competition:)

- noga1

September 25, 2012 at 8:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JGoldberg wrote the defense of free expression and belief speech, posted at RealClearPolitics orWorld via Bloomberg. Not what Obama is delivering about 10amEDT today. Going to be far more interesting to find out what Ahmadinejad will say tomorrow, on Yom Kippur. The new twist is that Iran is now claiming the right to self-defense, and retaliation, if attacked. Will the new twist at the UN be that no one can use that podium to call for the elimination of an entire nation?

- K2K

September 25, 2012 at 8:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regarding the Ahmadinejad speech tomorrow on Yom Kippur (are they trying to tell us something?), the reaction of the UN General Assembly will be interesting. The moral inversionistas have set the stage: Israel is a Nazi state and Iran can act on its right to self defense and retaliation. Will Obama/Clinton's reaction be more hollow rhetoric?

- amidut

September 25, 2012 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

new TNR.com needed the space for the Obama campaign ads... K2K -- brilliant!

- ironyroad

September 25, 2012 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: the philosophical and practical tension that you identify is part of the fabric of international law. Koskenniemi explains the nature of the tension in "From Apology to Utopia." Those who work in the field acknowledge it and move on to more practical matters - much in the same way the Common Law judges note principles, identify exceptions and move on to resolve matters without throwing up their hands in nihilistic despair. The field provides ample fodder for

- icarus-r

September 25, 2012 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's speech at the UN was stunning. I would like to read a Wieseltier analysis of it. btw: I was disappointed that most commercial media didn't carry it live.

- arnon1

September 25, 2012 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just watched/listened to Obama's UN speech, and, that bit about freedom of expression was really buried in the full 30 minutes. Not the full-throated defense of freedom of speech and belief that was needed. http://www.c-span.org/Events/World-Leaders-Pres-Obama-Speak-at-UN-General-Assembly/10737434383-1/ In Amy Sullivan's post conflating Obama's UN speech with Geller's subway posters (is that how TNR.com is going to cover Obama's speech????), she wrote "...Referring to the anti-Muslim video that has sparked outrage in Egypt and other majority Muslim countries, Obama said: “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet Mohammad.” ..." Actually, there was a lot more about that 'anti-Muslim video' (he is still blaming it for sparking the violence), but Obama did have the grace to add to this cut-off quote quite a bit about intolerance to Coptic Christians, and Shoah denial. Was one of his best bits - so why does TNR cut the quote to make it seem he was only concerned about slander of prophet Mohammed? btw, it was kind of intriguing that when C-Span panned to the audience, many African delegates were NOT applauding when most others were. just wondering why. I thought the Syrians, and Iranians were going to have strokes. and, Morsi was stone-faced throughout. Anyway, Obama will be criticized for speaking more about UN principles than those of the USA.

- K2K

September 25, 2012 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hope to see this thread when I return from atoning for never being able to fast during Yom Kippur. Next year, may there still be a Jerusalem full of life, still the capital of the sovereign nation of Israel.

- K2K

September 25, 2012 at 4:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought the freedom of expression part was somewhat more front and center, but that's maybe how it looks if you read the text version (I didn't see it on TV, so it might have come across differently there). I'm sure Romney will be on the airwaves this afternoon inventing more fairy tales about Obama apologizing. I'm tempted to repeat my joke of last year on Lincoln and the Gettysburg address: Lincoln: But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground . . . Romney/Ryan later at press conference: President Lincoln claimed today [Fox News shows clip that cuts off at "ground"] that Americans are not to be allowed to hallow the sacred battlefield at Gettysburg . . . one more indication of this president's hostility to American values!

- ironyroad

September 25, 2012 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... bit about intolerance to Coptic Christians, and Shoah denial. Was one of his best bits - so why does TNR cut the quote to make it seem he was only concerned about slander of prophet Mohammed?" Is anybody here bothered the placement, one next to the other, of "intolerance to Coptic Christians, and Shoah denial."? What's the difference between offending the Prophet Muhamad and and the two other events "intolerance to Coptic Christians, and Shoah denial"? Why suggest a false and misleading equivalence between Muhamad and the Shoah? Can Obama tell the difference between a myth and an event that took place within living memory? I'm not impressed. Obama has a tendency to narrate history to fit the sentiments of one segment of humanity while casually and barely nodding at the pain of another segment of humanity. G'mar Chatima Tova to all Jews, asajews, wannaby Jews and technical Jews. Our all-merciful God will forgive all :) God-Full-of-Mercy / Yehuda Amichai If God was not full of mercy, Mercy would have been in the world, Not just in Him. I, who plucked flowers on the hills And looked down into all the valleys, I, who brought corpses down the hills, Can tell you that the world is devoid of mercy. I, who was King of Salt at the seashore, Who stood without a decision at my window, Who counted the steps of angels, Whose heart lifted weights of anguish In the horrible contests. I, who use only a small part Of the words in the dictionary. I, who must decipher riddles I don't want to decipher, Know that if not for the God-full-of-mercy There would be mercy in the world, Not just in Him.

- noga1

September 25, 2012 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yes, noga, I was troubled by the moral equivalency throughout O's UN speech, but my comment was about why TNR's Sullivan chose to edit that line. I just watched Romney and Obama's speeches at Clinton's GI (also on C-Span). Best speech I have heard Romney deliver, which is not saying much because I usually avoid both of them. Romney usually makes me tense, but not today. Obama chose to speak against human trafficking as salvery. But his facial expressions and bored delivery made me wonder if he really meant what he said, except for all the Federal government programs he mentioned. Next comment needs to be separate.

- K2K

September 25, 2012 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

h/t to Tobin at Commentary: "...the Orthodox Union and that movement’s Rabbinical Council of America issued a call for prayer on Yom Kippur for an end to threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon... "On Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, Jews worldwide spend the day in fasting, prayer and repentance. Yom Kippur is not a day for politics. But Yom Kippur 5773 is different. On this Yom Kippur – the world faces an evil regime whose leaders have publicly committed themselves to destroying the State of Israel and to harming Jews worldwide; in addition, the Iranians are a threat to the global community. On this Yom Kippur – the leader of that evil regime will address the United Nations General Assembly and again preach his hatred; On this Yom Kippur – the words found in the High Holiday prayer book, “God determines which nations shall face war and which shall enjoy peace,” prompt us to contemplate with anxiety the fate of the State of Israel and her people, of Jews throughout the world and, indeed, of civilization as a whole. The threat is dire and demands our attention on our holiest day. Therefore, we call upon all congregations to dedicate a specific moment during their services on the upcoming holy day of Yom Kippur to pray for an end to the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. On Yom Kippur, may Israel and its people be sealed in the Book of Life for a year of life and peace. "

- K2K

September 25, 2012 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eliot Abrams on the fatal flaw in Obama's UN speech: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2012/09/25/obama-judaism-and-the-holocaust/comment-page-1/#comment-26479

- noga1

September 26, 2012 at 9:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For those who haven't seen it or read the speech: "Full Text of Obama's Speech to the UN -- Update: Video Added:" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/25/did-obama-stand-up-for-a-free-society-at-the-un0.html "... The road is hard but the destination is clear – a secure, Jewish state of Israel; and an independent, prosperous Palestine. Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey." Did Bush ever speak of a Jewish State of Israel?

- arnon1

September 26, 2012 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not surprised at Abrams reaction. He after all belongs to the Republican party and I assume supports Romney. Eliot Abrams is grasping at straws here. There was no equivalence intended between the Holocaust and any other kind of prejudice. "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied." What the speech condemned was anti-Christian prejudice and Holocaust denial. This is what was equated: anti Christian prejudices which takes the form of the desecration of its symbols and antisemitic prejudice which takes the form of Holocaust denial. Either Abrams is not a good reader or else he is being very cynical.

- arnon1

September 26, 2012 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder if K2K was at the anti-Warren demonstration were Brown supporters pretended to be Indians and used tomahawk chops aimed at the Elizabeth warren? http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/09/25/video_scott_brown_staffer_does_tomahawk_chop_to_mock_elizabeth_warren_.html

- arnon1

September 26, 2012 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/107064156/Ahmadinejad-Address-to-U-N-2012 is the full translated text of A'jad's UN speech today, which actually requires understanding the centrality of the Twelth Imam to Iran's Shi'a theocracy, and how Islam views Adam as the first muslim. all the western analysts are going to get their interpretation wrong if they do not understand that, in Islam, Jesus is also a muslim. ok, after I read this, I did wonder if A'jad carries a pocket-size edition of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" for quick reference. arnon1 can not read? I posted the C-Span URL of Obama's UN speech yesterday at 09/25/2012 - 4:25pm EDT | K2K "I just watched/listened to Obama's UN speech, and, that bit about freedom of expression was really buried in the full 30 minutes. Not the full-throated defense of freedom of speech and belief that was needed. http://www.c-span.org/Events/World-Leaders-Pres-Obama-Speak-at-UN-Genera..." sorry - URL is copied from above comment, where the link does work. as for arnon1's left field attack on me? I do not vote in Massachusetts, and have never, in my 60 years, ever attended any political rally. Only longterm unemployment led me to start paying attention to politics. However, I do appreciate the Christian Science Monitor's continuing real journalism for clarifying the record on Elizabeth's (the only name that is legible on her yard signs) Native American heritage: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Senate/2012/0926/Elizabeth-Warren-and-Cherokee-heritage-what-is-known-about-allegations if arnon1 is here to be a partisan flamethrower, reminder to ignore every word he writes.

- K2K

September 26, 2012 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Such an Hypocrite K2K and on Yom Kippur too.

- arnon1

September 26, 2012 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How times change. The democrats had high hopes on Bashar al Assad as a good reformer. When Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House how she visited with love Syria. And how she criticized George W Bush when he visited Israel during the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence and how George W made a magnificent speech in the Knesset. As far as Israel is concerned they have had only bs from Obama and his acolytes. For BHO to defend Mohammed and not criticize Jihad and islamo fascists tells a million. BHO tells he is a Christian, and his cousin is a Muslim. And he says is proud of his middle name Hussein. What does he get in response, Muslims killing our ambassador, and Muslims killing Muslims, and Muslims burning the American flag.. And BHO does not criticize these misdeeds. Who says that BHO is not another Jimmy Carter to the 2nd power?

- JAIMECHUCH

September 30, 2012 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And now BHO helpers promise BHO will visit Israel if reelected. Who needs him, this ijihad appeaser should give his magnificent speeches in Damascus.

- JAIMECHUCH

September 30, 2012 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close