President Obama proposed largest military aid deal ever provided by U.S.; Israel insists on more generous terms https://t.co/dRTJPpnx0K— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 29, 2016
Obama has offered Israel the most generous military aid package ever. But that is not good enough for the war criminal Netanyahu, whom you can only defend at this point if, like one friend, you are ideologically prevented from admitting that Israel could ever be wrong about anything, including the murderous naval shelling of Gazan boys playing soccer on a beach. Such a belligerent attitude undermines Israel's long-term future by denying reality, and damages your own soul.
In the meantime, this article talks about the importance of closing the aid deal in terms of cementing Obama's legacy of strong support for Israel and refuting unfair charges against him on that score. But he has nothing to prove. The evidence is clear. Bibi is the problem, having aggressively attempted to sabotage a multilateral nuclear agreement, vowed never to allow a two-state solution, and continued the slow annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory. Obama should make no further concessions.
President Obama, at a Q&A in London on Saturday, answers a question from transgender student Maria Munir.
My Blade column this week looks at the upcoming British referendum on exiting the European Union, and finds lessons for the Colonies.
Our friend Peter Tatchell writes from London:
Pope Francis has failed LGBT people
Gentler words do not assuage Vatican opposition to gay equality
"The Pope promised reform but has reconfirmed traditional Catholic doctrine on same-sex relationships. He has ignored submissions and appeals by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Catholics. Gentler words do not assuage Vatican opposition to gay equality. Joy of Love offers a change of tone, not of substance,” said LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.
Andrea Mitchell sums it up well.
Bravo to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton for their comments excoriating Ted Cruz over his hateful and utterly counterproductive demagoguery.
My thoughts while comparing foreign policy remarks by an experienced stateswoman versus a bullshitting narcissist:
The most vital presidential traits are not about public ceremonies and photo ops. They are summoned during grim, tense hours in the Situation Room. In a moment of crisis, do you really want a posturing amateur? No. You want someone who's been there, someone with experience--including vivid memories of when things went terribly wrong.
In the dark, fraught hours, when you watch and wait from oceans away as our nation's finest warriors must summon all their training amid grave danger, there are no illusions about your job being some slow, grand march to glory. It is humbling and sobering to know how many lives are implicated in every decision. Will you be meeting their coffins in a hangar at Dover AFB, comforting their loved ones?
This is a sacred trust. You cannot be glib about this. The job calls for someone who has been there, who knows the stakes, who has the relationships with foreign leaders to make the difficult calls at midnight to keep a confrontation from boiling over, or to summon and facilitate a global response to a tragedy. You need someone with the seasoning of hard experience. You need a survivor. You need someone who's ready. Hillary for President.
Hillary Clinton showed her political skills and foreign policy chops in her AIPAC speech Monday. She mixed pandering to a key constituency (and let's be honest, there certainly was some old-fashioned pandering) with a reiteration of longstanding American policy. Her bellicose tone in delivering it, which brought those in attendance repeatedly to their feet, likely gave some the impression that she was distancing herself from Obama, whose personal relations with Netanyahu are famously chilly; but she defended and tied herself to the Iranian nuclear accord. She could hardly do otherwise, since her fingerprints are all over it.
It was noteworthy how quiet she got in talking about still believing in a two-state solution. Her invoking the memory of Golda Meir as a woman leader of Israel, and grinning as she asked what's taken America so long, was a nice touch. Her citing Jerusalem Pride was entirely fitting despite the cries of "Pinkwashing!" by radicals on the left whose moral scorn only seems turned to the Jewish state. Her slamming of the BDS movement and its targeting of academics is also sound; after all, we do not boycott China and Russia, and as I write this our president is in Cuba--all of which are led by notoriously oppressive regimes.