The weirdly singular duo better known as Flynt Leverett and his wife Hillary Mann Leverett have co-authored another gem for the world to enjoy, and as per the norm the course of action they suggest and their reading of reality leaves one lacking.
A few weeks ago Flynt told everyone Ahmadinejad had legitimately won the Iranian election, and bonus.. Now more than ever this was the time to engage with Iran’s discredited leadership and make an offer! That’s a real doosie now huh? I can hear John Madden.. Boy, I sure made the wrong call on that one! I won’t start pounding out the links worth of credible criticism his little delusion garnered because frankly it isn’t necessary, the position is absurd.
I think I read this book..
Of course Flynt probably engaged in his civilized form of academic insanity for two reasons. One being he’s consistently wrong on the Middle East, and two because along with his similarly deluded co-authoring wife he’s the grand-daddy of the engagement policy with Iran, so like President Obama he is heavily invested in Iranian fantasy.
This whole concept was already pretty pie in the sky before, and everyone knew it from Hillary Clinton on down the list when Obama best exemplified it with his ‘I would meet with dictators without pre-conditions’ nonsense during the campaigns. His goal was squarely in line with the Leverett’s agenda for the Grand Bargain with radical Theocratic, Iran. Recent events have only confirmed what more realistic non-realists already knew, and made clowns of the whole lot of ‘em seemingly.
Incidentally, much of Obama’s harsh Israeli policy is mirrored in the Leverett’s own world view. The latest chef-d’oeuvre is on settlements & the peace process, a topic which Flynt despite his winning track record on being wrong, is still an expert in I gather.
Can we be more wrong? Of course we can.
Mann, who did some work stints at AIPAC in her past seems to take on the leading voice here in this weird creep me out symbiosis format they have going of shared authorship with one voice, she chastises Obama for not going even more strongly against Israel, declaring the need to call Israel’s settlements not just frozen, but illegal..
By shrinking from declaring Israeli settlement activity illegal, Obama has guaranteed that, in substance, his Middle East policy cannot depart significantly from that of George W. Bush. Obama’s insipidly favorable response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conditional “acceptance” of the two-state formula underscores an unfortunate continuity in America’s Middle East policy. In the end, Obama’s Middle East policy is rooted in his predecessor’s profoundly flawed 2003 road map for a two-state solution and the feckless process that Bush’s secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice launched at Annapolis in 2007. Worse, in contrast to other policy mistakes made early in his presidential tenure, Obama will be hard put to reverse the damage done by his lack of clarity and courage on the settlements issue by coming back at a later date and arguing that Israeli settlements in occupied territory are, in fact, illegal.
It’s hard to tell where she is coming from other than the fact that she clearly wants to smack Israel around a bit, the feeling after reading this trash is mutual. She discards the road map for peace agreed upon by the parties and the INTL community via the Quartet entirely, replacing it with a fantasy construct that if the USA should ‘make it so’ (declare Israel’s settlements illegal & somehow enforce this) that will magically lead to peace or something like that, from what I could decipher. It’s such wacky foreign policy I have a hard time absorbing because it isn’t reality based or logical. It’s all very Walt / Mearsheimer, I think they should get together and do a show – Maybe a Vegas act or something.
She also takes issue with the parallel nature of peace moves in the road map, effectively excusing the Palestinians of the need to halt terrorism & violence, or incitement as a requisite step to peace. In reality this is excusing them of the need to actually make peace as part of her proposed ‘peace process’. Someone needs to remind people that the concept which is flawed enough already is known as ‘land for peace’, not ‘land for padding the leftwing resume’ or ‘land for testing out insane theories at your allies expense’.
Of course it all makes more sense a few more paragraphs into this 3 page delusion festival, when she makes the case for simply imposing the peace on the parties, including imposing US determined terms for all the key final status issues which US longstanding policy advocates is to be negotiated between the parties themselves. It’s all ok though since one gathers the US no longer stands by US policy commitments in the age of Obama as evidenced in dealings with Israel over settlements.
Mann also rationalizes these delusions by stating that Ariel Sharon’s friendly tenure along with GW Bush did not result in anything advancing the cause of peace!? Instead it is better to slap Israel around I take it and put some hostility into the relationship by pressuring Israel to make concessions its electorate rejects. This is a delusion so deep one needs to depressurize one’s ears coming out of it. It illustrates nicely why ground breaking massive concessions like withdrawal from Gaza and razing our settlements bought us nothing from those hostile to Israel. Not even acknowledgment of our monstrous sacrifice and efforts for peace contrasted with the Palestinians total failure in every realm imaginable as a people.
Hard to reconcile her outlandish views. If not for the confidence Israel had in the American Israel relationship under those leaders we would never have entertained Gaza withdrawal. Without some serious confidence building by Obama in regards to the US administration (never mind the Palestinian Israel relationship) there is only going to be ever growing mass resistance to American policy & blatant interference in our country. Overall, Mann dishes out here foreign policy totally removed from reality, but in line with the J-Street ultra left wing view currently pervasive in Obama’s administration to which one assumes the duo are now even more left of (after serving under the Bush terms). The Leveretts have been consistently mistaken, their policy ideas discredited by events themselves and history, I don’t see much changing in light of their recent articles.
Our PM Netanyahu may say rosie words about the relationship because he’s our elected politician and that’s his job, but there can be little doubt that the hostility toward Israel has been felt by the public here and their willingness to make concessions or take risks for peace are diminished by Obama’s policies thus far, I can’t see how strangling Israel even further brings the prospect for peace closer.. Maybe she is trying to deflect the criticism of Obama as anti-Israel by cajoling for him to take an even more extreme harsh line but if anything, the delusions she puts forth and the extreme nature of these views hardly accomplishes that task. It only highlights how extreme you need to actually get in order to ‘outflank Obama on Obama policy’ these days..