As predicted, Soros foreign policy influence growing

American Thinker has repeatedly alerted our readers to the prospect of George Soros having  more sway in Washington when Barack Obama assumes the Presidency. Soros was an early supporter of Barack Obama and activated his empire of 527 groups to lend their support.

His investment may be paying off.

Markers are being laid down even before the Inauguration and a foundation  laid for a change in US foreign policy. A key linchpin in George Soros’s plans may be the International Crisis Group: a think-tank cum activist group that is heavily supported by Soros. He received a Founders Award from them, and spoke glowingly of its work on the “Palestinian” question.

Needless to say, its work on that question involved harsh criticism of Israel and suggestions that more pressure be exerted on Israel. The ICG is home to arch-Israel critic Robert Malley-where he heads its Middle East section. The ICG also has ties to Zbigniew Brezinski and Samantha Power-fellow travelers in the anti-Israel crowd.


This from the CNS media outlet:
Some policy analysts are advising the international community to take a more flexible approach towards Hamas in the coming months, arguing that reconciliation between the Palestinian factions is crucial if a peace agreement with Israel is to be negotiated.
 
In a new report, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) says the U.S. and European Union should signal that in the event of a new Fatah-Hamas unity government, they would not automatically reject and torpedo it.
 
They should also make it clear that they would judge such a unity government “not by its composition but by its conduct,” and that the U.S., without having to engage directly with Hamas, “would assess the Islamist movement on a more pragmatic basis.”
 
The ICG also says that if Obama follows up his campaign pledges to engage with the governments of countries like Iran and Syria, that may have the effect of helping to bring about a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.

As I have written repeatedly ("Obama’s One –Stop Shop for Foreign Policy Advisers"), the ICG may play a key role in influencing American foreign policy in the years to come.


While Barack Obama’s picks in the national security and top foreign policy posts may provide some comfort (except for Jim Jones as national security adviser-and he works in the White House and will meet daily with Obama, in contrast to Hillary Clinton stranded at Foggy Bottom), questions remain about the dozens of other foreign policy posts to be filled that are less visible except to foreign policy cognoscenti. These may hail from the ICG.

Other groups are also lobbying Barack Obama to exert more pressure on Israel. Again, from the CNS:

Another recent report, by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Brookings Institution, went further, saying that the incoming Obama administration should stop insisting that Hamas meet the Quartet criteria, as long as it respects a ceasefire and accepts a 2002 Arab peace proposal.
 
(The 22-member Arab League in that Saudi-initiated proposal offered to normalize relations with Israel on condition that Israel withdraws to borders it held before it captured the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and finds a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue.)
 
The recommended new U.S. strategy would diminish Hamas’ incentive to undermine negotiations with Israel and force Hamas either to accept a peace agreement or lose the backing of the Palestinian public, argued Steven Cook and Shibley Telhami in the CFR-Brookings report.
 
Another section of the CFR-Brookings report, by Richard Haass and Martin Indyk, urged Obama to be more aggressive than his predecessor in encouraging support for the 2002 Arab plan and in pressing Israel to follow through in its commitments in previous agreements with the P.A.
 
It said that because Hamas controls Gaza and enjoys “support among at least one-third of Palestinians,” any peace process that excludes it could fail.
 
The Obama administration should therefore have a more relaxed policy on the Islamist organization.
 
“If the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas continues to hold and a Hamas-P.A. reconciliation emerges, the Obama administration should deal with the joint Palestinian leadership and authorize low-level contact between US officials and Hamas in Gaza,” wrote Haass and Indyk.


Martin Indyk was a supporter of Barack Obama during his campaign and assured Israel supporters in  America that Barack Obama would stand firmly behind Israel . He engaged in this campaigning up to and including the final week before the election. After Obama won, his message changed.  Indyk declared that the end of “blank checks” for Israel was coming. He, and the Brookings Institute-where he is the Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy-waited until after the election to advocate more pressure on Israel and a change in our foreign policy approach.


There is clearly no truth in advertising laws or ethics during political campaigns.

American Thinker has repeatedly alerted our readers to the prospect of George Soros having  more sway in Washington when Barack Obama assumes the Presidency. Soros was an early supporter of Barack Obama and activated his empire of 527 groups to lend their support.

His investment may be paying off.

Markers are being laid down even before the Inauguration and a foundation  laid for a change in US foreign policy. A key linchpin in George Soros’s plans may be the International Crisis Group: a think-tank cum activist group that is heavily supported by Soros. He received a Founders Award from them, and spoke glowingly of its work on the “Palestinian” question.

Needless to say, its work on that question involved harsh criticism of Israel and suggestions that more pressure be exerted on Israel. The ICG is home to arch-Israel critic Robert Malley-where he heads its Middle East section. The ICG also has ties to Zbigniew Brezinski and Samantha Power-fellow travelers in the anti-Israel crowd.


This from the CNS media outlet:
Some policy analysts are advising the international community to take a more flexible approach towards Hamas in the coming months, arguing that reconciliation between the Palestinian factions is crucial if a peace agreement with Israel is to be negotiated.
 
In a new report, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) says the U.S. and European Union should signal that in the event of a new Fatah-Hamas unity government, they would not automatically reject and torpedo it.
 
They should also make it clear that they would judge such a unity government “not by its composition but by its conduct,” and that the U.S., without having to engage directly with Hamas, “would assess the Islamist movement on a more pragmatic basis.”
 
The ICG also says that if Obama follows up his campaign pledges to engage with the governments of countries like Iran and Syria, that may have the effect of helping to bring about a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation.

As I have written repeatedly ("Obama’s One –Stop Shop for Foreign Policy Advisers"), the ICG may play a key role in influencing American foreign policy in the years to come.


While Barack Obama’s picks in the national security and top foreign policy posts may provide some comfort (except for Jim Jones as national security adviser-and he works in the White House and will meet daily with Obama, in contrast to Hillary Clinton stranded at Foggy Bottom), questions remain about the dozens of other foreign policy posts to be filled that are less visible except to foreign policy cognoscenti. These may hail from the ICG.

Other groups are also lobbying Barack Obama to exert more pressure on Israel. Again, from the CNS:

Another recent report, by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Brookings Institution, went further, saying that the incoming Obama administration should stop insisting that Hamas meet the Quartet criteria, as long as it respects a ceasefire and accepts a 2002 Arab peace proposal.
 
(The 22-member Arab League in that Saudi-initiated proposal offered to normalize relations with Israel on condition that Israel withdraws to borders it held before it captured the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and finds a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue.)
 
The recommended new U.S. strategy would diminish Hamas’ incentive to undermine negotiations with Israel and force Hamas either to accept a peace agreement or lose the backing of the Palestinian public, argued Steven Cook and Shibley Telhami in the CFR-Brookings report.
 
Another section of the CFR-Brookings report, by Richard Haass and Martin Indyk, urged Obama to be more aggressive than his predecessor in encouraging support for the 2002 Arab plan and in pressing Israel to follow through in its commitments in previous agreements with the P.A.
 
It said that because Hamas controls Gaza and enjoys “support among at least one-third of Palestinians,” any peace process that excludes it could fail.
 
The Obama administration should therefore have a more relaxed policy on the Islamist organization.
 
“If the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas continues to hold and a Hamas-P.A. reconciliation emerges, the Obama administration should deal with the joint Palestinian leadership and authorize low-level contact between US officials and Hamas in Gaza,” wrote Haass and Indyk.


Martin Indyk was a supporter of Barack Obama during his campaign and assured Israel supporters in  America that Barack Obama would stand firmly behind Israel . He engaged in this campaigning up to and including the final week before the election. After Obama won, his message changed.  Indyk declared that the end of “blank checks” for Israel was coming. He, and the Brookings Institute-where he is the Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy-waited until after the election to advocate more pressure on Israel and a change in our foreign policy approach.


There is clearly no truth in advertising laws or ethics during political campaigns.