On Dennis Ross and The Future with Obama

Dennis Ross has been promoting the lection of Barack Obama and was recently interviewed in HaAretz here.

Now, the Jerusalem Post has done the same.

I have received some correspondence on the matter and bring it to oyour attention.

First, an introductory letter -

It is amazing that Dennis Ross is a senior American diplomat after reading his endorsement of Obama in the JPost. In the interview, his main point is that Obama will "Engage Without Illusion". Is he serious? First of all, who is he going to engage with that hasn't already been in an attemtpted engagement for years? The Pals? The Syrians? Hamas? And second, his entire thesis regarding the ME is "illusionary"... Maybe the Obama policy should be called "No Engagement without Illusions" or "Engagement with Total Illusions"... Is Ross a serious person of substance or what? I assume that Baker just brought him in because he is "yefay nefesh"; as they needed a Jewish face (or a few Jewish faces) to dupe the Jews and he has lasted from there. He hardly sounds to me like a serious thinker who could merit a postion like he he has had in the past. Oh well, I guess this is what the American Jewish community needs to be mollified.

We cast our votes Friday morning at the Board of Elections downtown. The breakdown was 95% African American voters to 5% everyone else. We did our part to put our fingers in the dyke and we will see if they hold.

A response -

Dear _,

Dennis Ross is a quasi-kapo -- the sort of fawning Jew those who wish to exterminate us reward with petty creature comforts to keep us calm as we are herded toward our slaughter.

Let's not forget that the last time Ross took part in Mideast negotiations, the result was the al-Aqsa Intifada and 1,057 dead Jews. This individual has so much blood on his hands, it's amazing that he wants to come back for more punishmment (i.e., of us).

Re his self-contradictory nuptial fantasy of "a political and diplomatic surge, married to a withdrawal," any American who advocates that we remove an army of 152,000 troops, the most power-projection force on earth, for whose current advantageous deployment 4,189 American families have paid with their children's lives, FROM THE VIRTUALLY UNDEFENDED (because Iran does not have state-of-the-art aircraft capable of providing air cover/close air support for its own forces) IRANIAN BORDER, AT A TIME WHEN THE SOI-DISANT "CIVILIZED WORLD" IS THREATENED BY CRAZED ISLAMIST FANATICS' IMMINENT POSSESSION OF NUCLEAR-ARMED MISSILES, has to be severely mentally disturbed. The prevalence of this self-destructive urge in our country does not speak well for the mental health of its citizenry.

Below are my comments on the Jpost article you sent.

Let me give you an example of what you could do. Saudi Arabia has enormous financial clout. SAUDI ARABIA HAS ZERO FINANCIAL CLOUT. EVEN WHEN THE OIL PRICE WAS SKY HIGH, THE SAUDIS' PLAN FOR CREATING THE WORLD'S LARGEST SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND CAME TO NOTHING; NOTE THE LACK OF RECENT DATES ON ANY OF THESE STORIES. THE SAUDIS HAVE JUST TAKEN THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL HIT IN THEIR HISTORY AS A RESULT OF THE OIL PRICE HAVING SWAN-DIVED 50 PERCENT SINCE JULY 2008 AND ON TRACK TO FALL BY TWO-THIRDS

Saudi Arabia has an enormous stake in Iran not going nuclear. OF COURSE IT DOES; THE MAIN REASON IRAN WANTS TO GO NUCLEAR IS TO ATTAIN HEGEMONY OVER THE ARAB OIL PRODUCING STATES, PREEMINENTLY SAUDI ARABIA But the Saudis have not been enlisted in a strategy to use that financial clout. Could Saudi financial clout make the difference in terms of European behavior? Yes. HOW WOULD THEY BE "ENLISTED . . . TO USE THAT FINANCIAL CLOUT"? WOULD ROSS PERSUADE THEM GIVE FOREIGN AID TO FRANCE AND GERMANY? Could Saudi financial clout make the difference in terms of Chinese behavior? The answer is absolutely. If China had to choose between Iran and Saudi Arabia, they'd choose Saudi Arabia. CHINA HAS ALREADY CHOSEN BETWEEN IRAN AND SAUDI ARABIA--AND THEY'VE CHOSEN IRAN, BECAUSE THEIR ASSESSMENT IS THAT IRAN IS GOING TO OBTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS BECAUSE PRESIDENT OBAMA IS GOING TO LET THEM. THE ONLY WAY TO ROLL BACK CHINA'S CHOICE OF IRAN WOULD BE FOR THE U.S. TO BLOCKADE OR BOMB IRAN INTO GIVING UP ITS NUCLEAR-WEAPONS PROGRAM.

But we haven't created a strategy where we do that. OF COURSE WE HAVEN'T. BUSH, INSTEAD OF MAKING USE OF THE GIFTS HEAVEN HANDED HIM IN THE PERSONS OF SARKOZY AND MERKEL, GOT BOGGED DOWN IN A REAR-GUARD POLITICAL BATTLE WITH U.S. DEFEATISTS We go to the Saudis and we treat everything in a segmented fashion right now... So one of the things you have to do is recognize where we have leverage WHERE WE HAVE DECISIVE LEVERAGE IS IN OUR DEPLOYMENT OF 152,000 TROOPS IN IRAQ, BUT ROSS IS INTENT ON WITHDRAWING THEM and where others have leverage and how do you mobilize that leverage on the Iranian vulnerabilities.

One of the reasons the Europeans hesitate to do more is because when we don't talk to the Iranians, they fear the increased economic pressure means a slippery slope to confrontation. THE REASON THE EUROPEANS HESITATE TO DO MORE TODAY IS THE SAME AS THE REASON THE EUROPEANS (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CZECHOSLOVAKIANS, WHO AS CZECHS AND SLOVAKS ARE STILL COURAGEOUS TODAY) DECLINED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN 1939-1940: THEY'RE MENTAL WEAKLINGS AND PHYSICAL COWARDS Now when we're prepared to talk, without illusions, with preparation, that makes it easier for the Europeans to put more economic pressure on. IT'S HARDER FOR THEM TO PUT MORE ECONOMIC PRESSURE ON BECAUSE THEY SEE THE COUNTRY ON WHICH THEY'VE RELIED FOR THEIR MILITARY DEFENSE FOR THE PAST 63 YEARS ON THE VERGE OF BOWING AND SCRAPING BEFORE THE THRONE OF ALI HOSSEINI KHAMENEI. We might not have a lot of time, but we actually have quite a few options - if we're prepared to behave differently than we have. SPOKEN LIKE A MAN WITH A VERY SMALL WEENIE.

The position of the United States since Camp David, the position, by the way, adopted in the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, signed by [prime minister] Menachem Begin, was that the final status of Jerusalem would be resolved by negotiations. A FLAT-OUT STUPID UGLY LIE. BEGIN SIGNED THAT TREATY SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LETTER OF RESERVATION TO CARTER: "I have the honor to inform you, Mr. President, that on 28 June 1967 Israel's parliament (The Knesset) promulgated and adopted a law to the effect: 'the Government is empowered by a decree to apply the law, the jurisdiction and administration of the State to any part of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel - Palestine), as stated in that decree.' On the basis of this law, the government of Israel decreed in July 1967 that Jerusalem is one city indivisible, the capital of the State of Israel." Those are the three points. That's what his position is.

What do say about voters who will agree with you that he [Obama] supports Israel generally speaking, but that when it comes to a moment of truth - if Israel were attacked, for instance - that he wouldn't stand tough.

They don't understand his basic view of American interests, and also that he believes fundamentally in Israel's right of self-defense. WHAT THIS SNAKY VERBIAGE MEANS IS THAT OBAMA BELIEVES IN ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF BY ITSELF, AS CONTRASTED WITH THE 35-YEAR-OLD U.S. DOCTRINE THAT RECOGNIZES ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF WITH U.S. LOGISTICAL SUPPORT One thing that's true about Israel, that's part of the Israeli ethos, is that Israel has always said we fight our own battles. They don't want Americans to come fight the battles for them. So I think it's important to understand who Israel is and what's important in their relationship with us. What's important in their relationship with us is to know they can count on us, but they don't want us to take their place in what they have to do for themselves. And I think it's important for any American administration to respect that. ROSS NEVER UTTERS A SYLLABLE OTHER THAN IN DIPLOMAT-SPEAK, SO EVERY WORD HAS TO BE PARSED: IN PLAIN ENGLISH, OBAMA WILL "RESPECT" ISRAEL'S DESIRE NOT "TO TAKE THEIR PLACE IN WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO FOR THEMSELVES." GEE, THANKS, GUY! AND LET'S NOTE THAT ROSS SAYS THAT "WHAT'S IMPORTANT IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH US IS TO KNOW THEY CAN COUNT ON US"--NOT THAT FOR ISRAEL "TO KNOW THEY CAN COUNT ON US" IS IMPORTANT IN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM!

You could argue that the Bush administration has tried the policy of engagement with the Palestinians that Obama advocates.

I don't think they know how to engage. They engage in a way that is completely ineffective. There's a kind of episodic approach to it. TRANSLATION: OBAMA PLANS TO PUT ONGOING, NON-EPISODIC PRESSURE ON THE PALS--WHICH MEANS ONGOING, NON-EPISODIC PRESSURE ON ISRAEL. And the point of engagement is to engage in a way that's going to be effective.

The Camp David negotiations which you helped Clinton lead at the end of Clinton's term didn't succeed either.

When I say engagement without illusion, it means negotiations are not a guarantee that you can achieve peace. WHEN HE SAYS ENGAGEMENT WITHOUT ILLUSION, IT MEANS NEGOTIATIONS ARE A GUARANTEE THAT WE CAN NOT ACHIEVE PEACE. PEACE WILL COME IF AND WHEN THE PALS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE U.S. IS NEVER GOING TO DELIVER THE SHTACHIM TO THEM, AND THAT ALL THAT'S ATTAINABLE WILL BE THE 1978 CAMP DAVID AUTONOMY, NEGOTIATED DIRECTLY WITH ISRAEL. But if you walk away and don't try, that's a guarantee that you can never make peace. ON THE CONTRARY: IT'S THE PERIODIC WALKING TOWARDS AND TRYING THAT'S A GUARANTEE THAT YOU CAN NEVER MAKE PEACE. What you don't want to do is create self-fulfilling prophecies. SENDING DENNIS ROSS BACK TO THE REGION IS ITSELF A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.

Should we test the Syrians? The Israeli military thinks we ought to test the Syrians through a negotiating process. That's why the Israelis are using Turkey as a go-between.

Is it in Israel's interest to have Turkey as a go-between as opposed to us? YOU BET IT IS! TURKEY DOESN'T HAVE AN ULTERIOR "GREAT POWER" OR PRESIDENTIAL-LEGACY MOTIVE. TURKEY, LIKE ISRAEL, HAS TROUBLEMAKING NEIGHBOR NAMED SYRIA. Is Turkey going to watch out for Israel's interests the way we would? NO, BARUCH HASHEM--BECAUSE TURKEY ISN'T TRYING TO APPEASE MILITANT ISLAMISM BY RAMMING A DEAL DOWN ISRAEL'S THROAT. IT'S JUST A REGIONAL POWER THAT HAS PEACEFUL RELATIONS WITH ISRAEL, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PEACEFUL RELATIONS WITH SYRIA, AND WOULD LIKE ISRAEL TO HAVE PEACEFUL RELATIONS WITH SYRIA. I don't think so. Do I think Senator Obama would do that in a way Senator McCain would not? I do. ROSS IS PROBABLY RIGHT. MAYBE McCAIN WOULD HAVE THE GOOD SENSE NOT TO INSERT ITSELF BETWEEN ISRAEL AND SYRIA THE WAY CARTER, YEMACH SHEMO, INSERTED THE U.S. BETWEEN ISRAEL AND EGYPT.