Blaze Magazine Special Preview: A Foreign Policy to Die For?

Editor’s note: Every issue of TheBlaze Magazine, contains exclusive content not found anywhere else—online or in print. The magazine’s stories, research and special reports are reserved for subscribers to the print edition (and, yes, there is a digital version of the magazine, too), which is created by the same team that brings you TheBlaze.com.

The October 2012 cover feature, “What's at Stake,” includes nine pieces analyzing the top issues of this election.

Below is an excerpt from Tiffany Gabbay's examination of foreign policy, particularly the candidates' stances on Israel and the Middle East. Her full essay is available only in the October 2012 issue of TheBlaze Magazine.

-------------

The Middle East is indeed no stranger to turmoil, but the years 2010 and 2011 marked a tipping point in the region, as the United States, led by President Obama under the banner of NATO, intervened in Libya’s burgeoning civil war between civilian rebels and forces loyal to the late Moammar Gadhafi.

Preventing the carnage from reaching critical mass, America’s role in helping to overthrow the despot who ruled Libya with an iron fist for more than four decades turned out to be a thankless job.

On Sept. 11, 2012, militants—some of whom were part of the same rebel-base the United States supported against Gadhafi—breached the American consulate in Benghazi, murdering four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, two Navy SEALS and an additional civil servant.

[...]

The Obama administration’s knee-jerk reaction to Islamists’ apoplectic protests and murder of four Americans on U.S. soil was not to fight fire with fire over an act of war, but to instead apologize for the alleged catalyst for the attacks—a low-budget YouTube “movie” that some considered critical of Islam. Later, the administration even released an apology video to quell yet another rampaging mob in Pakistan—which comprises perhaps the most staunchly Islamic population of all Muslim countries—in essence, doubling down on its appeasement efforts.

Kowtowing to Islamists outside the United States who demand Americans live in accordance with Islamic ideology—ideology that is anathema to Western laws and values—will only embolden extremists. Thus, adopting a foreign policy that assumes a more authoritative position on dealing with acts of terror might better serve U.S. interests. On the current trajectory, however, foreign policy experts interviewed by TheBlaze agree that the Obama administration’s “policy of appeasement” will do nothing to strengthen America’s standing in the Middle East and but will put more Americans and Israelis in even greater danger.

Mitt Romney has consistently condemned the president for “throwing Israel under the bus,” signifying for some that this Republican may be warmer and more accommodating to the Jewish state than even former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Romney has also been outspoken about the U.S. embassy attacks and ensuing riots across the Middle East, revealing that he would not apologize to nor reward those who shed American blood.

ORWELLIAN MINDSET

The administration lives in a world where friends are foes and foes are friends. How else does one explain the spectacle at the 2012 Democratic National Convention where the party was humiliated into amending its platform to reinstate language declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel? ... The controversy should have come as no surprise since the Obama State Department still refuses to officially acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Even after the changes, the 2012 Democratic platform still lacks key components vital to Israel’s security. There’s no language opposing a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel, which, given the millions of Palestinians involved, would prove demographically disastrous to the Jewish state.

Also missing from the platform is the once-strong Democratic position regarding Hamas, the Iran proxy bent on Israel’s destruction: No longer does the Democratic Party advocate a policy of non-negotiation with the Palestinian terrorist organization.

[...]

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S NO RE-ELECTION TO WORRY ABOUT?

In an article for National Review, Middle East Forum founder Daniel Pipes reminded readers of an exchange between Obama and Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based anti-Israel activist. According to Pipes, Abunimah wrote about his last conversation with Obama in early 2004, while the latter was in the middle of his U.S. Senate primary campaign.

Abunimah wrote that Obama greeted him warmly and said, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.”

The message is relatively straightforward. Once a political candidate is on his last term and is no longer concerned about re-election, he is more inclined to show the world his true colors ...

Get the full piece only in the October 2012 pages of TheBlaze Magazine.