Mediaboss Marketing

Read: Wherever Obama turns, there Trump is

Obama has been careful in how hes publicly discussed his successor. Campaigning against Trump in 2016, Obama said several times that democracy is on the ballot, and he often portrayed the thenRepublican nominee as an easily triggered hate-monger who couldnt be trusted with the presidency. The night before the November election, at a closing rally in Philadelphia with Clinton, Obama said that the presidency reveals people for who they really are, and that Americans should be worried about what Trump had revealed about himself. Since then, Obama has largely stayed away from offering specific criticism of Trump. But he campaigned in 2017 and 2018 to defeat the presidents Republican allies, declaring, in a repeat of his 2016 message, that our democracys at stake.

Obama has never gone as far as using the word fascist in public, even though thats not an uncommon opinion, especially on the left. Journalists and academics who have lived in and studied fascist regimes regularly point to the traits Trump seems to share with those leaders, including demanding fealty, deliberately spreading misinformation, and adopting Joseph Stalins slur that the press is the enemy of the people. And thats not to mention Trumps apparent admiration for living authoritarians, such as Russias Putin, Turkeys Recep Tayyip Erdoan, and North Koreas Kim Jong Un. He speaks, and his people sit up at attention, Trump gushed about Kim in a 2018 interview on Fox & Friends. I want my people to do the same.

In the footage from Hillary, Kaine seems to suggest that Obama wanted him to be more aggressive against Trump. He knows me and knows I tend to hold back, Kaine says. (This past November, Kaine referred to Trump as a tyrant in an interview on the Radio Atlantic podcast.)

In the Sundance interview, Clinton said that Obama had never used the word fascist in conversations with her about Trump. But, she said, what Obama observed was this populism untethered to facts, evidence, or truth; this total rejection of so much of the progress that America has made, in order to incite a cultural reaction that would play into the fear and the anxiety and the insecurity of peoplepredominantly in small-town and rural areaswho felt like they were losing something. And [Trump] gave them a voice for what they were losing and who was responsible.

In the documentary footage, Clinton also notes that she is scared and suspicious of what Trump is up to. His agenda is other peoples agenda, she says. Were scratching hard, trying to figure it out. He is the vehicle, the vessel for all these other people.

[Paul] Manafort, all these weird connections, Kaine replies, referring to Trumps former campaign chair, who is now in prison after being convicted of financial crimes related to his international business dealings.

[Michael] Flynn, who is a paid tool for Russian television, Clinton continues, referring to Trumps onetime national security adviser and former campaign surrogate. The way that Putin has taken over the political apparatus she starts to say. Then, a voice off camera interrupts her.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

More here:
Obamas 2016 Warning: Trump Is a Fascist - The Atlantic

Dozens of recently published memoirs written by officials who worked for the Obama administration have helped us understand these officials backgrounds and views of actions taken and not taken. But like others in the memoir genre, the latest crop is generally self-justifying. Despite these glowing tomes, the Obama administration was far from the golden age for U.S. alliance, especially for U.S. allies in the Middle East.

I had a ringside seat for U.S.-Israel relations during President Barack Obamas first term as the political counselor at the U.S. Embassy to Israel. In the spirit of seeking to better understand these relations in those years, I offer one episode glossed over in the memoirs to date. That episode began with Obamas speech entitled Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa and delivered at the State Department on May 19, 2011.

This was Obamas first major speech on the Middle East since the Arab Spring had broken out six months earlier. One of Americas most important Arab allies, former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, had resigned in the face of angry crowds in Tahrir Square; dictators in Tunisia and Yemen had been toppled; America had intervened to prevent Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya from marching on Benghazi; Assad in Syria had started massacring his citizens; finally, Arab monarchs in the Gulf, Jordan and Morocco were shaken and one of them, in Bahrain, was facing mass protests

American diplomats in the region anticipated that the speech would lay out a new ground plan for addressing the unprecedented street protests then convulsing the entire Arab Middle East.

And Obama did exactly that in the first three quarters of the May 19, 2011, speech. But then he pivoted. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting [Israeli-Palestinian] peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever, he said. Warning that Israel must act boldly, Obama stated that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1949 Armistice lines with mutually agreed swaps.

This portion of the May 19 speech flabbergasted me. The attempt to link ongoing Arab street protests with resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seemed mistaken. The protestors were not making this claim. Israeli-Palestinian talks were on hold for unrelated reasons. More importantly, the speech revoked a key written commitment that the United States made to Israel at the time of Israels unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2004. That couldnt help restart Israeli-Palestinian talks, which we were trying to do.

The Obama speech revoked a commitment made in an exchange of letters on April 14, 2004, between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. At the time, Israels parliament, the Knesset, was debating Sharons plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and four West Bank settlements. Sharon went to Washington to obtain U.S. commitments that would help him secure Knesset approval of the plan. He got an important promise that helped him win Knesset approval. The United States, in the Bush letter to Sharon, said it would support Israeli-Palestinian talks over borders that would start with Israel keeping settlement blocs inside the West Bank, provided there would be mutually agreed swaps in exchange for Israel keeping those blocs.

In his May 19, 2011, speech, Obama revoked the U.S. commitment and said the United States would support talks that start from the 1949 lines and proceed on the basis of swaps. Thus, if the Palestinians reject any swaps (which they have consistently done), there would notbe any realistic progress on borders. From Israels perspective, the 1949 Armistice lines leave them in an indefensible position, with most of its population on a coastal plain with eleven miles between the West Bank and the Mediterranean at its most narrow.

Following Israeli protests of the Obama revocation, the President publicly reversed himself three days later in a speech to AIPAC, insisting that there had been no change in the U.S. position on border negotiations. But a senior official involved in drafting the speech had told me earlier that the May 19 speech was intended to convey a change in policy on borders, as a get-tough signal to Israel.

There were two other problems with the Obama speech. First, its timing appeared to humiliate Israeli prime minister Netanyahu who only learned of the speechs Israeli-Palestinian points as he was stepping onto a plane to Washington for a previously scheduled meeting. At the May 20 press conference at the White House, Netanyahu brought up the apparent change in U.S. policy and appeared to lecture the President, causing public speculation about the U.S.-Israel relationship. Second, revoking the 2004 U.S. commitment on borders may also have contravened an earlier U.S. commitment to Israel, made in a memorandum of understanding attached to the 1975 Sinai Disengagement Agreement. In this MOU the United States promised Israel not to present any initiatives on Middle East peace without first discussing them with Israel.

The U.S.-Israel relationship has always been dynamic with many ups and downs in each administration. The Obama administration, fortunately, had a senior advisor with deep Israel experience, Dennis Ross, who worked to smooth over relations with an Israel that was navigating an especially turbulent time in the Middle East.

The Obama revocation doesnt figure in any of the largely self-congratulatory memoirs of the Obama years; it wasnt a high point for any of the key figures. I recall it as a moment of clarity regarding the Obamateam's disdain for Israel. It is also an example of the increasing partisan handling of our foreign policy, in which each president often seeks to undo policies and sometimes even commitments made by the immediate predecessor. Neither started with President Donald Trump. Finally, it is a reminder of the need for experienced advisors and diplomats who can help manage our foreign relations alongside our elected political leaders who set the policies.

Bob Silverman is a former senior Foreign Service Officer and President of the American Foreign Service Association. He has published opinion pieces in Foreign Policy, USA Today, the Foreign Service Journal and The Forward, and translated a book from Arabic, A Drive to Israel by Ali Salem.

Read more from the original source:
Obama Also Got It Wrong in the Middle East - The National Interest Online

Satisfaction with race relations in the United States has jumped under President Trump, the latest indication that the Republican is making significant inroads with blacks and other minorities in advance of the 2020 presidential election.

New details from a Gallup survey on satisfaction said race relations and the position of minorities under Trump are far higher than they were under President Barack Obama, the nations first black president.

Race relations scored the highest satisfaction advance, 14 points, from 22% at the end of the Obama administration to 36% this month, said Gallup.

And, The position of blacks and other racial minorities in the nation jumped 9 points, from 37% in January 2017 to 46% now.

Gallup

The poll bolsters several others that have shown Trump picking up support from blacks and Hispanics 10 months before Election Day.

Some notable polls have shown black support at up to 34%, though GOP pollsters suggest that once the Democrats pick a nominee support for Trump will drop back to 12%-14%. But that would be historic for a Republican presidential candidate and could turn the race for Trump, they added.

White House officials have credited the rise in support from African Americans and other minorities to the improved economy, historically low unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, and women, prison reform, and urban renewal programs.

Whats more, Gallup said that the nations average satisfaction rate is at a 15-year high.

Said the survey analysis:

Americans' average satisfaction rating for the 27 issues Gallup has tracked consistently since 2001 is now 47%. This is up three points from a year ago and is the highest since the January 2005 poll.

Today's average satisfaction is roughly on par with the level of the early 2000s. Only in 2002 was the average for this metric substantially higher than it is today. The average 53% recorded that year reflected heightened satisfaction as Americans were in full rally around the flag mode shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

More:
Race relations and 'position' of minorities better under Trump than Obama - Washington Examiner

The Barack Obama Foundation has received a major donation for the creation of a Chicago-based sports facility. According to Forbes, Nike gifted the organization $5 million for the development of an athletic hub that will be a part of the Obama Presidential Center.

The public facilitywhich will be constructed inside of the South Sides Jackson Parkwill offer free programming for Chicago natives and tourists alike. The purpose of the facility is to unite individuals in the local community through sports and fitness initiatives. Our belief in the power of sport to transform lives is why we work with organizations like the Obama Foundation because whether its on a global scale or at the grassroots level, weve seen whats possible when sport brings us together, wrote Nikes Chief Social & Community Impact Officer and Nike Foundation President Jorge Casimiro in a statement. Our approach to these community partnerships is grounded in the knowledge that kids who move will move the world. And for those facing the steepest barriers, the benefits of play and sport have an especially powerful ripple effect.

This marks the first time in history that a presidential center will encompass a sports facility. This isnt the first time that Nike has teamed up with the Obamas. Seven years ago, the company made a $50 million investment in former first lady Michelle Obamas Lets Move! Active Schools initiative which was designed to introduce youth to healthy lifestyles. The highly anticipated presidential center will be one-of-a-kind. Aside from the librarywhich is being created in collaboration with the Chicago Public Librarythe campus will reportedly feature a museum, a space designed for public meetings, a playground and green spaces.

According to Curbed Chicago, there is no word on when the $500 million project will begin construction.

SEE ALSO:

The Obama Portraits To Be Displayed At Museums Throughout The U.S.

The Obamas Sign Deal With Spotify To Produce Podcasts

Go here to see the original:
Nike Gifts The Barack Obama Foundation $5 Million For The Development Of A Sports Facility - News One

Anyone paying attention to President Donald Trumps policy on Israel over the last three years is not surprised by the contents of his administrations so-called peace plan, which was rolled out on Tuesday. Yet many are still shocked by how brazenly the United States has legitimized the ethno-religious domination of Palestinians.

The Swiss cheese cut-out map of the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, showing enclaves reserved for Palestinians, strikingly resembles the Bantustans of apartheid-era South Africa. In fact, the map simply mirrors the reality on the ground as it exists today in the occupied West Bank. The proposed ceding of Israeli territory for additional Palestinian enclaves near Gaza might seem magnanimous, until one realizes that these areas sit atop a nuclear waste dump.

Zaha Hassan is a human rights lawyer and visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The U.S.s apparent aim is to facilitate Israels desire to take the maximum amount of Palestinian land with the least number of Palestinians. To this end, two relevant stakeholders were at the White House this week: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the leader of the Israeli opposition Benny Gantz. No Palestinians were needed, since the Deal of the Century is, in effect, a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Israel over how much Palestinian territory to annex.

The plan doesnt foreclose Israels taking of even more Palestinian land in the future. This is because, before Palestinians can even hope to have a state of their own, they must declare that the Greater Israel envisioned under Trumps plan is the nation state of the Jewish people. Once Palestinians recognize those expanded borders, make the above declaration, and meet other unattainable benchmarks including ending all resistance to their ongoing oppression negotiations can begin. Only then will the U.S. support designating territory for a future [Palestinian] state.

Regardless of whether Palestinians accept the plan, Israel now has Americas blessing to annex most of the West Bank, with the promise that the U.S. will extend political recognition to those territories. As such, there is no way to understand this plan or look at the attached conceptualized map without calling it by its name: apartheid, designed and sanctioned by the U.S. government.

The reaction of the international community thus far has largely been milquetoast. The EU reiterated its support for a two-state solution, as did several Arab states. Democrats have been more critical, calling the plan an attempt to influence foreign elections, but the remedy is the same: a return to bilateral negotiations and a viable two-state solution.

This position ignores the elephant in the room. What has made a peace agreement illusive between Israelis and Palestinians is not the lack of active U.S. engagement with both parties, or insufficient rounds of bilateral negotiations. There has been no peace agreement because Israel, backed by the U.S., is unwilling to address the root cause of the conflict: the forced mass displacement of Palestinians and the expropriation of their land that began before 1948 and continues until today. Americas failure to compel Israel to accept its responsibility for Palestinian exile, to engage in meaningful negotiations, and to end Palestinian statelessness is what has emboldened Israels ongoing colonization.

The subjugation of Palestinians and the disregard for their rights and humanity did not begin with the Trump administration. President Bill Clintons peace parameters showed similar indifference when he called on Palestinians to cede parts of Arab East Jerusalem for the benefit of Jewish settlers, and to temper their expectations regarding the return of Palestinian refugees to their original homes.

Likewise, President George W. Bush was not concerned for Palestinian rights when he assured Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in writing that the U.S. did not expect Israel to completely withdraw from the occupied territories. Bush also accepted the demographic changes resulting from Israeli settlement as immutable, and declared that all Palestinian refugees should be resettled in a future Palestinian state not their historical homes.

President Obama went further by stating that everyone knows . . . a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people. The Obama administration believed that by supporting such a parameter, Israel might be encouraged to end settlement expansion and accept Palestinian statehood. It in fact had the opposite effect: settlement building accelerated during Obamas eight years in office.

Despite this, only days before President Trump was to take office, the Obama administration officially made Palestinian recognition of Israel a parameter for negotiations. This, along with the permissive environment created under Trumps administration, gave the Israeli Knesset a green light to pass the quasi-constitutional Jewish Nation-State Law in July 2018, which ensures that Jewish people have the exclusive right to self-determination anywhere Israel decides to extend its sovereignty.

That the Trump plan requires Palestinians to first recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people before the U.S. even contemplates designating territory for a future Palestinian state should be understood not only as a way to end refugee claims and legitimize land expropriation, but as an opening for the displacement of Palestinian citizens of Israel in the future. The plan hints as much by referring to the possibility of ceding communities within Israel that have a high density of Palestinian citizens to a future Palestinian state. Those Palestinian citizens, like the rest of their brethren, need not be consulted.

What is needed now is not chest-pounding or handwringing about returning to bilateral negotiations and a viable two-state solution. What is needed is for policy-makers in the U.S. and abroad to reassess their support for political solutions that would sanction the supremacy of one people over another. If that conversation does not take place now, in a world where ethno-nationalism is on the rise, Trumps Deal of the Century will become the shame of the century.

This article was originally published by +972 Magazine.

Continued here:
From Clinton to Obama, U.S. Peace Deals Have Paved the Path to Apartheid - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace