Is This What He Meant By Change?

This item comes courtesy of As In The Days Of Noah regarding Obama's top Middle East advisor. What began as a casual study of this man and what his appointment might mean for our foreign policy regarding the Middle East over the next 4 years, quickly escalated into a disturbing look at how our only true ally in that region (and the apple of God's eye) - Israel - will most likely be treated by the "changed" U.S.

Robert Malley, a top Middle East advisor that U.S. President-elect Barack Obama promised months ago would play no role in his administration due to his ties to Hamas, has reportedly been sent out on the next administration's first diplomatic mission.

According to a report in Middle East Newsline, Obama dispatched Malley to Egypt and Syria late last week with a message that the he intends to mend and bolster relations with both nations, and to give greater weight to their concerns regarding regional conflicts than did President George W. Bush.


WHY SHOULD THAT CONCERN US?


During the Democratic Party primaries, Obama was lashed by critics for having Malley on his team after the latter admitted to being in regular contact with Hamas as part of his work with the International Crisis Group.

In fact, Ed Lasky wrote an absolutely compelling piece for the American Thinker back in January that had uncovered and brought to light some shocking truths:

"One of his advisors in particular, Robert Malley, clearly warrants attention, as does the reasoning that led him to being chosen by Barack Obama. A little family history may be in order to understand the genesis of Robert Malley's views. Normally, one should be reluctant in exploring a person's family background - after all, who would want to be held responsible for the sins of one's father? However, when close relatives share a strong current of ideological affinity, and when a father has a commanding persona, it behooves a researcher to inquire a bit into the role of family in forming views. That said, Robert Malley has a very interesting father.

His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World. He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for 'liberation' struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.

Simon Malley loathed Israel and anti-Israel activism became a crusade for him-as an internet search would easily show. He spent countless hours with Yasser Arafat and became a close friend of Arafat. He was, according to Daniel Pipes, a sympathizer of the Palestinian Liberation Organization - and this was when it was at the height of its terrorism wave against the West. His efforts were so damaging to France that President Valerie d'Estaing expelled him from the country.

Malley has seemingly followed in his father's footsteps: he represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism. Through his writings he has served as a willing propagandist, bending the truth (and more) to serve an agenda that is marked by anti-Israel bias; he heads a group of Middle East policy advisers for a think-tank funded (in part) by anti-Israel billionaire activist George Soros; and now is on the foreign policy staff of a leading Presidential contender. Each step up the ladder seems to be a step closer towards his goal of empowering radicals and weakening the ties between American and our ally Israel.

Robert Malley's writings strike me as being akin to propaganda. One notable example is an op-ed that was published in the New York Times (Fictions About the Failure at Camp David). The column indicted Israel for not being generous enough at Camp David and blamed the failure of the talks on the Israelis.

Malley has repeated this line of attack in numerous op-eds over the years, often co-writing with Hussein Agha, a former adviser to Yasser Arafat (see, for example, Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors). He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.

Malley is a revisionist and his views are sharply at odds with the views of others who participated at Camp David, including Ambassador Dennis Ross and President Bill Clinton. Malley's myth-making has been peddled in the notably anti-Israel magazine, Counterpunch and by Norman Finkelstein, the failed academic recently denied tenure at DePaul University. Malley's Camp David propaganda has also become fodder for Palestinians, Arab rejectionists, and anti-Israel activists across the world."

What in the world is going on here? More importantly, why isn't our mainstream media looking into these things and asking these types of questions to fulfill their duty was watchdog? It's not as if this information is hidden. This is all a matter of public record. You just have to be willing to take the time to research the facts for yourself.

Lasky summarizes his thoughts with the following statements:

"Was Malley so central to the peace process that he knew something that escaped the attention of our Middle East Envoy and our President? When one reads Dennis Ross's account of his years of trying to bring peace to the region, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace, one can question just how central Malley was to the Camp David negotiations.

Malley has written a range of pieces over the years that reveal an agenda at work that should give pause to those Obama supporters who truly care about peace in the Middle Peace and the fate of our ally Israel.

Robert Malley also testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February, 2004. In that appearance he called for the Road Map to be cast aside because incremental measures intended to build trust were unworkable. He advocated that a comprehensive settlement plan be imposed on the parties with the backing of the international community, including Arab and Moslem states. He anticipated that Israel would object with "cries of unfair treatment" but counseled the plan be put in place regardless of such objections; he also suggested that waiting for a 'reliable Palestinian partner' was unnecessary.

His ideology is radically at odds with American foreign policy as it has been practiced by two generations of Presidents - both Democrats and Republicans - over the years. This is the type of advocacy Robert Malley has been pursuing in the years since the end of the Clinton Administration and from his perch at the International Crisis Group - an organization that may share his agenda."


QUESTIONS REMAIN


As with many other subjects that are apparently "off limits" when it comes to Barack Obama this is one issue that demands further analysis because several critical questions remain.

When Obama first took heat over this during the primaries it was spokesman Ben LaBolt who quickly responded at the time that Malley had provided "informal advice to the campaign in the past," but insisted that he had "no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."

Here are some things that the American people (and the rest of the world) need answers to:

Why would Barack Obama have on his foreign policy staff a man who has been widely criticized for a revisionist history of the Middle East peace process sharply at odds with all other accounts of the proceedings?

Why would Barack Obama give credibility to a man who seems to have an agenda that includes empowering our enemies and weakening our friends and allies?

How did Robert Malley, with a record of writing that reveals a willingness to twist facts to serve a political agenda, come to be appointed by Obama to his foreign staff? Was it a recommendation of Zbigniew Brzezinski to bring on board another anti-Israel foreign policy expert?

What does it say about Senator Obama's judgment that he appointed a man like Malley to be a top foreign policy advisor? Or does it speak more to his true beliefs?

I'm curious if one of the 74% of American Jews who voted for this man can comment on this. Do you feel any differently in light of these revelations? Is this what he meant by change?

Seems like politics as usual to me. Then again, I guess when you're hailed as the world's messiah you can pretty much do whatever you want whenever you want an renege on past promises.

RECOMMENDED READING:
Barack Obama's Middle East Expert
Obama's Road To Damascus
Barack Obama and Israel
Barack Obama Sacks Adviser Over Talks With Hamas