A lobby at a crossroads
At its annual conference, the group recognizes its image problem—but hesitates to offer a bold solution
Scarlett Johnasson, John Kerry scare up controversy over Palestinian movement
Depending on how you feel about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, how should you feel about the BDS movement?
Kerry may be backing away from a "final status" agreement
It may be in trouble.
Please, American blowhards: No more analogies to 1938
The 1938 conference between Chamberlain and Hitler is misunderstood. And the blowhards who constantly evoke its memory are dangerous.
Understanding both is key to a potentially enduring solution to the snagged negotiations.
A few lucky breaks led to a different speech than we expected
Barack Obama’s speech on Syria had a peculiar structure. The first part of it was devoted to justifying why the president had decided to “respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.” Your average listener might have thought that Obama would say next that missiles aimed at Damascus were leaving their silos. The threat of violence loomed over the first half of the speech.
When pressed during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that the goal of an American military strike against Bashar al Assad’s Syrian government would not merely be to punish him for his use of chemical weapons, but to inflict “collateral” damage that would have a “downstream impact” on his regime’s survival.
I’m not in the habit of agreeing with Scott Brown, the former Republican senator from Massachusetts, but he hit the nail on the head when he lambasted Democratic Senator Edward Markey for voting “present” Wednesday on the resolution to bomb Syria—making Markey, in his first important vote since he was sworn in two months ago, the only lawmaker on the 18-person Senate Foreign Relations Committee who couldn’t come up with a “yea” or “nay.” “Please let him know that the people
Today, Secretary of State John Kerry laid out the case against Assad, summarizing the unclassified intelligence assessment that was just then landing in reporters' inboxes: Bashar al-Assad and his minions knew about, prepared for, and carried out a massive attack using a nerve agent on areas outside Damascus that his regime had trouble clearing of the opposition, "to break a stalemate." The
Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry, in a speech at the State Department, said it is “undeniable” that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, and called the attack “a moral obscenity.” This leaves President Obama, who in 2012 called chemical weapons a “red line” that would “change my calculus” when it came to dealing with Bashar Assad, with no clear road forward. When I called some liberal heavyweights to ask what the United States can and should do about Syria’s bloody civil war, some told me we’ve left ourselves no choice but to invade, while others stressed that that’s the worst thing we could do. The majority said reaching accord with Russia, Syria’s powerful ally, is our last hope—but none seemed confident that Kerry will succeed at the bargaining table.