Sunday Reads: Obama’s alliance with Russia & Iran, What did Abbas actually say?, AIPAC’s tough times

US

Rob Satloff and James Jeffrey believe that President Obama has his priorities wrong in the Middle East and that an alliance with Russia and Iran isn't the way to go:

Taken together, the Administration’s wrong assumptions led it to an analysis that misreads the Middle East situation and a set of policies that misprioritizes the urgent (rolling back ISIS) over the important (preventing anti-American, anti-Western powers from rearranging Middle East security to their benefit). But it’s not too late. If the Russian-Iranian power-play in Syria, like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a generation ago, compels the President to reassess his policy, he will find that has realistic options.

Former officer and CNAS fellow Phillip Carter presents an argument against the training of proxy forces to fight for American causes:

Defense officials frequently talk up the value of having foreign military officers attend U.S. military schools. And it may seem helpful when an American general is able to call a foreign general during a crisis based on their shared school experience. Yet when we help to strengthen uniformed leaders and not civilian ones, such as politicians and police chiefs, we make foreign militaries more likely to prevail and seize power in future political skirmishes. Research by political scientists Jonathan D. Caverly and Jesse Dillon Savage suggests that American military training “can nearly double the probability of a military-backed coup attempt in the recipient country,” as seen recently in Mali and Burkina Faso.

Israel

Major-General Giora Eiland , the former head of Israel's National Security Council, suggests that coordination with Hamas could stop the escalation:

As these two Hamas interests don’t contradict the only Israeli interest, which is purely security-related, it would be possible to reach understandings which would lead to a long-term calm. Such an achievement must be based not only on deterrence, but also on intensive activity to economically rebuild the Gaza Strip – an activity which is not taking place, unfortunately. Moreover, and this should be said explicitly, the Israeli interest is a stable Hamas government, as any other alternative won’t be as good for us.

Mazal Mualem was not impressed by Netanyahu’s UN speech:

The speech delivered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations on Oct. 1 was, as always, a worthy masterpiece of an indictment against the hypocrisy of the UN and the world, silent in the face of the Iranian threat and its emissary, Hezbollah. It was an articulate speech, worked out down to the smallest detail, including facial expressions and the silence gimmick, but also outstanding in its irrelevance and dissociation from reality. It was the speech of an excellent UN ambassador, not of a veteran and experienced prime minister presenting a vision and agenda to his people and the world.

Middle East

Dennis Ross tries to understand what Mahmoud Abbas actually said in his big UN speech:

It is one thing to say “we will not be bound by these agreements,” and another thing actually to stop implementing them, particularly when the Palestinian Authority is by far the largest employer in the West Bank. With roughly 70 percent of the Authority’s budget coming from the taxes that the Israelis collect, there will be no rush to end the economic protocol. (Every time Israel withholds these funds, it creates a financial crisis in the territories.) And given that Mr. Abbas constantly emphasizes his opposition to violence, he is unlikely to end security cooperation.

Jeffrey A. Stacey writes about how the West lost both Crimea and Syria to Russia:

The United States and its Western allies should not have been caught so off-guard by Putin’s shrewd but destabilizing move. Since the Russia invasion and occupation of Eastern Ukraine, Putin has been poking and prodding the West, seeking ways in which a militarily and diplomatically resurgent Russia can subvert Western security interests and force Western capitals to deal with Russia again as a major world power with its own unique set of legitimate interests.

But this was not just a sin of omission. It is also a sin of commission. By not confronting Putin and Russia sufficiently over its illegal invasion and occupation of Ukraine, the United States and its Western allies effectively gave Putin a green light to project force in other geostrategic hot spots.

Jewish World

Liel Leibovitz wonders whether the Iran deal signifies the decline of AIPAC:

Anti-Israel detractors who for the last decade declared that AIPAC was all-powerful are now rushing to declare the lobby irrelevant, and some in Congress—Democrats and Republicans alike—are inclined to agree. What is being perceived as AIPAC’s refusal to run an aggressive campaign against Democrats supportive of the Iran deal is causing some former allies on the right and on the left to ponder whether the formerly formidable organization has any purpose anymore.

This interesting Independent piece describes how 43 individuals effectively started the fight antisemitism in Great Britain:

Having watched the Nazis rise from a small fringe party to become the authors of the Holocaust and after encountering official indifference (James Chuter Ede, the Home Secretary in Labour’s post-war reforming government, conspicuously failed to order a crackdown), here were individuals who took the view that fire had to be fought with fire. As Sassoon later put it from his Hollywood mansion: “After Auschwitz, there were no laws.”