DOES PRES. OBAMA’S APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT MALLEY PRES. OBAMA’S REAL BELIEFS?
From the unclassified public record Robert Malley’s very strong antipathy toward Israel is well documented. Also, from the unclassified public record is very clear that Susan Rice is very well aware of his active involvements in behalf of Hamas and of Yasser Arafat. The questions that Ed Lasky raised in 2008 are even more relevant today, given Malley’s White House promotion and his being placed in charge of Israeli-Palestinian affairs (and other major areas of responsibility):
a. 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?
b. 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?
c. 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?
d.Was it a recommendation of Zbigniew Brzezinski to bring on board another anti-Israel foreign policy expert?
e. What role did the left-wing anti-Israel activist George Soros play in placing Robert Malley (or for that matter, Brzezinski himself) in a position to influence the future foreign policy of America?
f. What does it say about 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?
1.Barack Obama’s Middle East Expert
Barack Obama’s real thinking about Israel and the Middle East continues to be an enigma. The
words he chose in an address to AIPAC create a different impression than the composition of his
foreign policy advisory team. Several advisors have evidenced a history of suspicion and worse toward Israel. 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.
His story of the talks is also plain wrong.
Dennis Ross had this to say regarding the failure of Camp David when he laid the blame on Yasser Arafat and Palestinian leadership:
….Fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict. Arafat’s whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause… for him to end the conflict is to end himself.
…Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn’t … achievable was because Arafat wouldn’t accept it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.htmlPresident Clinton
echoed these remarks, elsewhere:
So a couple of days before I leave office, Arafat says, calls to tell me what a great man I am. And I just said, “No, I’m not. On this I’m a failure, and you made me a failure.”
At the conclusion of Camp David, Clinton made these points, stressing that Israeli leader Ehud Barak had gone the extra mile to reach peace with the Palestinians:
-Prime Minister Barak showed particular courage, vision, and an understanding of the historical importance of this moment. Chairman Arafat made it clear that he too remains committed to the path of peace.
-Prime Minister Barak took some very bold decisions…
-I will say again, we made progress on all the core issues; we made really significant progress on many of them. The Palestinian teams worked hard on a lot of these areas. But I think it is fair to say that at this moment in time, maybe because they had been preparing for it longer, maybe because they had thought through it more, that the prime minister moved forward more from his initial position than Chairman Arafat on — particularly surrounding the questions of Jerusalem…
-… not so much as a criticism of Chairman Arafat, because this is really hard and had never been done before, but in praise of Barak. He came in knowing that he was going to have to take bold steps and he did it, and I think you should look at it more as a positive toward him than as a condemnation of the Palestinian side…
– I would be making a mistake not to praise Barak, because I think he took a big risk, and I think it’s sparked already in Israel a real debate, which is moving Israeli public opinion toward the conditions that will make peace. And so I thought that was important, and I think it deserves to be acknowledged. (Clinton
press conference, July 25, 2000)
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.
Playing Into Sharon’s Hands: which absolves Arafat of the responsibility to restrain terrorists and blames Israel for terrorism. He defends Arafat and hails him as
..the first Palestinian leader to recognize Israel, relinquish the objective of regaining all of historic Palestine and negotiate for a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 boundaries. And he remains for now the only Palestinian with the legitimacy to sell future concessions to his people.
Rebuilding a Damaged Palestine: which blames Israel’s security operations for weakening Palestinian security forces (absurd on its face: terrorists filled the ranks of so-called Palestinian security forces-which, in any case, never tried to prevent terrorism) and calls for international forces to restrain the Israelis
Making the Best of Hamas’s Victory: which called for international aid to be showered upon a Hamas-led government and for international engagement with Hamas (a group that makes clear in its Charter, its schools, and its violence its intent to destroy Israel). Malley also makes an absurd assertion: that Hamas’ policies and Israeli policies are mirror images of each other.
Avoiding Failure with Hamas: which again calls for aid to flow to a Hamas-led government and even goes so far as to suggest that failure to extend aid could cause an environmental or health catastrophe-such as a human strain of the avian flu virus!
How to Curb the Tension in Gaza: which criticizes Israel’s for its actions to recover Gilad Shalit who was kidnapped and is being held hostage in the Gaza Strip. He and co-writer Gareth Evans call Israel’s actions ‘collective punishment” in “violation of international law”.
Forget Pelosi: What About Syria?: where Malley calls for outreach to Syria, despite its ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the terrorists committing murder in Iraq; believes it is unreasonable to call for Syria to cut ties with Hezbollah, break with Hamas, or alienate Iran before negotiations; he believes a return of the Golan Heights and engagement with the West will somehow miraculously lead the Syrian regime to take these steps — after they get all they want.
Containing a Shiite Symbol of Hope: that advocated engagement with the fiercely anti-American Iraqi Moqtada al-Sadr, who has been responsible for the murder of many Americans and Iraqis as the leader of the terrorist group, the Mahdi Army. He also has very close ties to Iran.
Middle East Triangle: (co-written with former Arafat advisor Hussein Agha) calls for Hamas and Fatah to reconcile, join forces, and to frustrate, in their words, Israel’s attempts to “perpetuate Palestinian geographic and political division”. Then Hamas will grant Abbas power to make a political deal with Israel that will bring peace. Noah Pollack of
Commentary Magazine noting, as Malley habitually fails to do, Hamas intends to destroy Israel,
eviscerated this op-ed.
The U.S. Must Look to its Own Mideast Interests: (co-written with Aaron David Miller) which advocates a radically different approach towards the Middle East which, in their words, does not “follow Israel’s lead” and encompasses engagement with Syria (despite problems with Lebanon and their support for Hezbollah) and Hamas (regardless of its failure to recognize Israel or renounce violence).
A New Middle East: which asserted Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel and the kidnapping of Israelis, which sparked the Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006, were motivated by Hezbollah’s desire to retrieve Lebanese prisoners in Israeli jails and were a response to pressure being exerted on its allies-Syria and Iran.
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.
This is merely a sample of Malley’s views — which are focused on disengaging from our ally Israel (whose lead America should not “follow”) and engaging with and, in some cases financially supporting, the likes of Syria, Moqtada al-Sadr, Hezbollah and Hamas. 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.
The International Crisis Group
Robert Malley is the Director of the Middle East/North Africa Program at the International Crisis Group (ICG). Given the impressive title of the group, one might expect it to have along and impressive pedigree — say long the lines of the well-regarded Council of Foreign Relations. In fact, the group is rather small and it has a short pedigree. More importantly, it has ties to George Soros. Soros is a man who has supported a wide variety of groups that have shown a propensity to criticize America and Israel; a man who has made clear his goal is to
break the close bonds between America and Israel ; supported the views of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer whose work on the issue of the “Israel Lobby” has been widely criticized for factual inaccuracies, shoddy research, and has been
called “anti-Semitic” in the
Washington Post; a man who has taken steps to
counter the supposed political influence of the pro-Israel community in America; a man who has also been a key
financial backer of Senator Obama’s; and a man who can activate a wide variety of 527 (c) and other activist groups for any politician he supports.
Soros is a funder of the ICG through his
Open Society Institute ; he serves on its Board and on its
Executive Committee. Other members of the Board include Zbigniew Brzezinski (whose anti-Israel credentials are impeccable) and Wesley Clark (who called US support for Israel during the Hezbollah War a “
serious mistake“; who has
flirted with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories; and who has been the direct
beneficiary of donations made by Soros ; Wesley Clark has
defended the actions of George Soros.
But let’s return to George Soros.
While it is true that the ICG receives funding from other sources, none of these donors are on the board; and a billionaire on the Executive Committee of the Board can wield a great deal of influence. Soros is a man who is legendary for his investment prowess. In this case, he again seems to have invested well — as he is proud to trumpet. When the ICG gave him a Founders Award, he
spoke of how pleased he was with the work the group does (“my money is very well spent”), and he took particular pride in the work done “on the Palestinian question”.
As he should be, given his goals. Malley, as the Director of the Middle East/ North African program at the ICG, has assembled a group of “analysts” who reflect his (and Soros’s) views and who share their goals: a radical reshaping of decades of American foreign policy and a shredding of the role of morality in the formulation of American policy. These policies would strengthen our enemies, empower dictatorships, and harm our allies.
This small cast of characters at the ICG:
Issandr el Amrani has accused the Bush Administration of fanning the flames of sectarian strife by rallying support against Iran. He absurdly
claims that the goal of this alliance is to create,
“a new regional security arrangement with the Jewish state firmly as its center-the holy grail of the neo-conservatives who, despite reports to the contrary, continue to craft U.S. Middle East policy. (Otherwise, why would Elliott Abrams still have his job?”
Peter Harling: who has co-written numerous op-eds with Malley that
advocate outreach toward Iraqi extremist leader Moqtada al-Sadr;
talks with Iran and Syria ; and numerous op-eds critical of American actions in Iraq.
Other analysts and their opinions can be found
here.
They are uniformly passive on dealing with terrorism and terrorists; critical of US efforts in Iraq and American-led efforts to constrain Iran; advocate aid be given to Hamas despite its record of terrorism; endorse engagement with Syria despite its links with Hezbollah, its role in oppressing Lebanon and its involvement in the assassinations that have helped to destroy Lebanon. They also seemingly have no qualms about advocating outreach to Iran, regardless of its role in the killing of American and Iraqis in Iraq and its proclaimed goal of destroying Israel.
No wonder Soros is happy with his investment in the International Crisis Group and in Robert Malley.
Question remain
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 role did the left-wing anti-Israel activist George Soros play in placing Robert Malley (or for that matter, Brzezinski himself) in a position to influence the future foreign policy of America?
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?
*A digression, if I may, regarding Malley and impressive sounding titles. A
Washington Post article on Senator Obama’s foreign policy advisors described him as having been President Clinton’s Middle East envoy. Now this would come as a surprise to Ambassador Dennis Ross who actually was Clinton’s Middle East envoy. Indeed, there is a paucity of mentions of Malley in Ross’s exhaustive history of the Middle East peace process during the Clinton years,
The Missing Peace, where more often than not he is described as a note-taker-once serving as Yasser Arafat’s stenographer.
2. Robert Malley and US Policy on Israel Alex Safian CAMERA 3-11-15
|
|
|
|
|
| The very controversial Robert Malley, who has been serving on the National Security Council, was just promoted to the post of Special Assistant to President Obama with responsibility for the Middle East, and as such will be the lead person in the NSC handling US policy towards Israel.According to the statement on the White House website, NSC head Susan Rice praised Malley as one of her “most trusted advisers” and “one of our country’s most respected experts on the Middle East,” who “since February 2014 … has played a critical role in forming our policy on Iran, Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf.”
Some might not consider the latter to be high praise, considering the conflagrations that have engulfed the region in the last year. But there are much deeper concerns regarding Malley than what has happened in the last year.
Considering Malley’s new senior role regarding US policy on Israel, it seems appropriate to reiterate here the information that was originally published in 2008 and 2005:
Robert Malley is one of the most often quoted commentators on U.S. Middle East policy and the Arab-Israeli conflict, thanks mostly to his time in the Clinton administration, where he served on the National Security Council as Director for Near East and South Asian Affairs, and also as Special Assistant to the President for Arab-Israeli Affairs. Malley served in these positions despite having no special expertise in Middle East questions – he is a Harvard-trained lawyer and later spent a few years at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.
With the beginning of the Bush administration in 2001 Malley moved over to the policy and think tank world, continuing his involvement with Middle East issues. He was Senior Policy Advisor at the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation, and is now with the Soros-funded International Crisis Group, where he serves as Middle East and North Africa Program Director. It is since joining the policy and analysis world that his media profile took off: for example, searching Robert Malley on Google yields 27,000 hits while a similar search on the professional news database Nexis returns 1,358 citations.
He is perhaps most well known for a controversial series of articles in 2001 blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat for the failure of the Clinton peace efforts.
Malley has recently also been listed by the Washington Post as a Middle East advisor to Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, though others have disputed this.
While Robert Malley’s past history might seem typical for a bright young man pursuing a senior Middle East policy position in a future Democratic administration, digging a little deeper reveals something quite untypical in his past. Robert Malley grew up in France, where his Egyptian-born father, Simon Malley, and New York raised mother, Barbara (Silverstein) Malley, were radical publishers of a controversial magazine about Africa and the so-called Third World. Malley’s parents were rabidly anti-Israel and counted Yasir Arafat as a personal friend. Indeed, Arafat was among those “leaders” (for want of a better word) who intervened with the French government to readmit the Malley family to France after they had been expelled for their radical activities.
That is, while in the Clinton administration Malley dealt directly with Palestinian matters, and with Yasir Arafat himself, despite having a huge and hidden conflict of interest: close ties between his family and Yasir Arafat.
Well, hidden from the public – when questioned about it in 2001, Dennis Ross, Clinton’s senior Middle East adviser, said that the Clinton administration knew all about Malley’s past.
While CAMERA did not publish all the facts at the time, we did mention the ties between Malley and Arafat in an article in 2005.
But now, with Malley possibly a Middle East advisor to a major presidential candidate, it seems the full story should be exposed. I will try to minimize repetition of what others have recently published on this subject, while still laying out the facts in a coherent way.
Robert Malley and his family history
In the 1970’s the Malley family lived in France, where Robert’s father Simon Malley, published a radical magazine about Africa, Afrique-Asie, which supported various leftist “liberation movements” as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. According to the Washington Post:
Police are looking for the editor of Afrique-Asie magazine, whose pro-Soviet line and support for certain Third World countries is said to have upset President Valery Giscard d’Estain, The Sunday Times of London reported.
Egyptian-born Simon Malley, 47, his American wife Barbara and their three children reportedly have gone into hiding. They face expulsion for what officials describe as “political activities which do not correspond with, and even run contrary to, French interests in certain countries.”
Afrique-Asie, which has a circulation of nearly 120,000 mostly in Africa and Latin America, is said to have received Soviet financial backing. Malley, a founder of the Egyptian Communist Party, arrived in France 11 years ago from the United States, where he worked for a Cairo newspaper. (Washington Post, Aug. 7, 1980)
According to the UPI:
… Interior Minister Christian Bonnet told the Assembly that some articles written by Malley were “genuine appeals to murder foreign chiefs of state… ”(October 3, 1980)
The New York Times characterized the magazine with these words:
Afrique-Asie, which is issued every other month, has strongly backed leftist revolutionary movements, criticized moderate African and Middle Eastern leadership and denounced Israel. (NYT, Oct. 4, 1980)
and reported in the same article that Yasir Arafat had protested the expulsion order to the French government:
Support for Mr. Malley has come from … African and Middle Eastern leaders as well as from Yasir Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The Associated Press also reported Simon Malley’s expulsion :
France expelled an Egyptian-born American journalist Friday on grounds his activities threatened harm to French relations with conservative Asian and African countries and put him on a plane for New York…
Malley, his American-born wife Barbara Silverstein of New York, and their three children were all subject to the expulsion order. It was believed Mrs. Malley and the children were still at their home in Paris…
“Some of his articles are a veritable incitement to the assassination of foreign chiefs of state. The French government cannot tolerate them,” [a French official said].
The bi-monthly magazine Afrique-Asie is published in Paris and regularly attacks Western policies in all parts of the world. It claims to be non-aligned, but has supported the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan, the Cuban intervention in Angola and Ethiopia, the seizure of American hostages in Iran, the Algerian-backed guerrilla war in southern Morocco, and the Arab opposition to Israel and the Camp David agreements.
In an editorial, the magazine said Malley’s expulsion proved the French government’s collusion with “imperialist, neo-colonialist and racist forces seeking to destabilize and overthrow revolutionary regimes”…
The Algerian, Libyan and Angolan governments have publicly defended Malley and warned that his expulsion could damage their relations with France. Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat said it would undermine France’s prestige throughout the Arab world. (AP, Oct. 3, 1980; emphasis added)
Characterizing Malley’s work, the Economist reported that he:
… has acquired the reputation of a propagandist because his review fervently attacks “western imperialism” while approving the invasion of Afghanistan. (August 9, 1980)
With the election of the Mitterrand government in 1981, the expulsion order against Mr. Malley was lifted and he and his family returned to France. He later created a new incarnation of his magazine, titled Le Nouvel Afrique Asie, in which he published a long interview cum hagiography with Mr. Arafat; that edition also featured a copy of a personal letter of congratulations from Mr. Arafat to Simon Malley. (Dec. 1989, Le Nouvel Afrique Asie)
|
|
|
|
Congratulatory letter from Yasir Arafat to
Simon Malley.
|
Simon Malley’s interview of Arafat in the same issue.
|
Malley’s deep antipathy towards Israel was perhaps most starkly revealed in a series of interviews he conducted in 1982 with the Soviet-era communist dictator of Bulgaria, Todor Zhivkov. The interviews were later published as a booklet by the Bulgarian regime, entitled Bulgaria Extends a Friendly Hand, featuring a touching cover photo of Zhivkov himself.
|
|
|
Simon Malley’s extended interview of Bulgarian communist dictator Todor Zhivkov.
|
|
@ bernard ross:
Treason is a popular pastime and a legitimate avocation in the confused state of Israel. Patriotism, not so much!
Herzog and Livni appear to be part of a shadow Obama effort to destabilize the Israeli government and sabotage the Israeli election process. In my view they should be investigated for treason.
oldjerry is right as rain
Let’s stop tip toeing around the truth. Obama is a Muslim and a Jew hater. His past history (the little we know), his advisors,his appointments, his friends and his agenda all attest to that. As a politician he has to keep his true feelings towards Jews and Israel under cover but they seep through the wraps.
Soros is at the core of Obama, instructs his appointments, makes many foreign govs and soon he may own Israel too. The bad seed has never changed from when he helped the nazis to confiscate Jewish property as a teenager; today he is doing the exact same thing he was doing then.
herzog wants to make Malley happy