Reflections on the disastrous foreign policy of this administration:
Khadafy can be forgiven, but there are transgressions that can’t. One such sin was perpetrated by Israel after the nation’s decision to allow a new housing project to be built in Jerusalem.
The White House became so agitated with the new housing project — and the ill-advised timing of the announcement, which came during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit — that the casual onlooker might have been led to believe the Jerusalem neighborhood in question was part of some unfinished negotiation with Palestinians, or even that it was one of those “settlements.” It was neither.
Still, according to The Jerusalem Post, Hillary Clinton telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who, along with many other Israeli officials, apologized for the poor timing of the project’s announcement — to “berate,” “rebuke,” “warn” and “condemn” Israel. White House senior adviser David Axelrod used NBC’s “Meet the Press” to call the incident an “affront,” an “insult” and “very, very destructive.”
As the administration was manufacturing this anger, the Palestinian Authority was preparing the newly minted Dalal Mughrabi square. You know, just a place for folks to gather and commemorate the 32nd anniversary of 1978’s Coastal Road Massacre, in which 37 Israelis — 13 of them children — were murdered in a bus hijacking.
An American named Gail Rubin, who happened to be snapping some nature pictures in the area, was also gunned down.
No worries. No affront taken. That’s not “very, very destructive” to the process. We are above the fray. Above frivolous notions of “allies” or “friends.” History only matters when our enemies deem it important. We don’t want to tweak the fragile mood of the Arab street.
They had better start to worry about the American street. Especially if they continue to push health-care deform on us.
[Update a while later]
Some related thoughts from Michael Ledeen:
As he pushes Israel away from the American embrace, Obama has undertaken to make peace with Iran, whose genocidal hatred of America and Israel and bloody war against both requires a very different policy. Sensible Middle East experts understand that there cannot be peace between Israel and the Arabs as long as Iran exercises a decisive influence over the key terrorist organizations. But Obama has willfully ignored this connection in designing his Mideast plans.
You can’t even begin to address the Arab-Israeli thing until and unless you’ve defeated Iran.
Unfortunately, they don’t believe in winning wars, only in “ending” them.
We can’t elect amateurs, allow them to appoint amateurs, then act surprised when it’s amateur hour.
On the flip side, there is such a thing as the wrong kind of experience, which we often endured during the last administration. But even that may have been better than this, which seems to be heading in the direction of alienating our friends and convincing our enemies that we are vulnerable.
So, when General Petaeus says the perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel puts American soldiers at risk, he’s bowing?
So, in the same article, when various US Jewish groups issue statements which “tracked a memo that the Israeli Embassy” distributed we’re supposed to see that as not bowing to the Israelis?
We have an interest in peace in the Middle East. That peace will only happen if both sides compromise. We also have a right to ask our allies to do or not do certain things that are in our interest.
Wow. Where to start?
Palestinians, Al Qaeda, etc., dislike America because it’s a free nation, with capitalism, and “infidel” non-muslims. So does that mean that we should bow to their perceptions to protect our troops? The leaders of the U.S. have already purposely tanked our economy, but it doesn’t seem to help that “perception”.
And, way to completely miss the point of the ORIGINAL article, which was that the U.S. was condemning Israel for announcing a new housing project completely unrelated to any disputed territory, while giving the Palestinians a free pass on building a monument to remember the massacre that they perpetrated in 1978.
Then again, when you’re a scarecrow, there’s no such thing as a bad strawman, I suppose…
Palestinians dislike America because it supports Israel. Al Qaida recruits (in part) on our support of Israel.
The Palestinians are paying a price for building their monument – Israel is blockading trade to the territories and generally not allowing the Palestinians to have their own state.
You failed to answer my question – is General Petraeus “bowing” to the Arab street? If he is, we’ve got a big problem considering he’s directly in command of the two wars we’re fighting there.
Then, to answer your strawman, Yes, he’s bowing.
The point of having allies is that you support them, and they support you, and you deal with the consequences of that support together. If they are so harmful to you that they are no longer worth being allies with, then you cut the tie, you don’t string them along and leave them twisting in the wind.
I, personally, feel that the result of cutting ties with Israel would be more damaging than maintaining them as allies, if they were actually TREATED as allies. And I’m 99% sure that dumping Israel wouldn’t change Palestine or Iran’s view of the U.S., it would merely bolster their support in the international criminal world to see “the infidels fleeing.”
You can’t treat the requests and demands of an enemy the same as those of an ally. The enemy, in most cases, is probably lying to you.
Who says we’re “dumping” Israel? We’re asking them to not build yet another building on disputed territory. Shouldn’t “support for an ally” go both ways? Doesn’t Israel have some obligation to help us out? That’s what this debate is about – Israel’s obligation to us.
We’re asking them to not build yet another building on disputed territory.
This is absurd. As far as the “Palestinians” are concerned, all of Israel is “disputed territory.” It’s not building houses in east Jerusalem that upsets them — it’s the fact that the Jews exist at all in their own ancient homeland. Sixty years of history shows that the only way to get peace in the Middle East (or at least in Israel) is to evict the Arabs from land that they lost when they tried to annihilate it, and send them back to Jordan, Syria and Egypt. And of course, there would be no peace in the Middle East even if they got their wish, and drove the Jews into the sea. As the old saying goes, Arabia has bloody borders.
“Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations, Gen. David Petraeus, the chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” he added.
Here Chris. This is the whole quote, not the parsing you were doing.
Oh and Chris, where’s the crtiticism of the PA for memorializing a terrorist whose claim to fame also cost the life of an American citizen? So far, the Obami have asked, actually demanded consessions from Israel. What have they demanded from the PA or HAMAS? They won’t even ask publicly for the removal of Israels destruction from the HAMAS charter.
They have helped. The only concessions have been from Israel. Don’t forget they’re the ones who have actually stopped nuclear reactors being built in Arab dictatorships, not us.
Sixty years of history shows that the only way to get peace in the Middle East (or at least in Israel) is to evict the Arabs from land that they lost when they tried to annihilate it, and send them back to Jordan, Syria and Egypt.
But that is not the stated policy of either the United States or Israel. If Israel wants to declare a policy of ethnic cleansing, they should do so; they shouldn’t say one thing and do another.
And I’m 99% sure that dumping Israel wouldn’t change Palestine or Iran’s view of the U.S.
Gen. Petraeus disagrees with you.
Palestinians, Al Qaeda, etc., dislike America because it’s a free nation, with capitalism, and “infidel” non-muslims.
So they dislike Japan just as much? Really?
for announcing a new housing project completely unrelated to any disputed territory
Is it news to you that the status of East Jerusalem is disputed?
while giving the Palestinians a free pass on building a monument to remember the massacre that they perpetrated in 1978
So the Palestinians should have a state, but shouldn’t be allowed to build monuments in their state? What sort of sovereignty is that?
Bill Maron – I did read the whole quote. Providing $3 billion in military aid while not demanding that they not aggravate a problem is exactly what the general was talking about.
Also, so when Obama went to Cairo and said Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist, that was a private meeting? That was not a demand?
Gen. Petraeus disagrees with you.
So?
Is it news to you that the status of East Jerusalem is disputed?
As I said, the entire territory of Israel is disputed, so I don’t understand your point.
If Israel wants to declare a policy of ethnic cleansing, they should do so; they shouldn’t say one thing and do another.
Who said they want to do such a thing? I was simply describing the necessary and sufficient requirement for peace. Of course, there might be one more step, which is to punish severely any further aggression from its neighbors.
Gen. Petraeus disagrees with you.
So?
So we’re sending a guy to fight a two wars, and he says “X” would be helpful and “Y” would be unhelpful. We say, “not only no X, but more Y.”
Perhaps we are being counterproductive.
I am currently reading Much Too Promised Land by Aaron David Miller, a middle east peace negotiator who worked for six secretary of states (dem and republican). I suspect Miller is a Republican, but it doesn’t matter. Miller has written editorials on the recent controversy as well — his basic position: We’ve seen this before with other Likud PMs, we’ll see it again, it is all kabuki theatre.
It is in the interests of the US to look tough with Israel (we look independent), it is in the interests of Likud PMs to look tough with the US (bones up domestic support among far right parties), and it is in the interests of the Palistinans for an apparent divide between Israel and the USA to occur, as long as the USA and Israel actually remain close allies . The US and Israel have one of the strongest alliances in the world, and the reasons the Arabs turn to the USA is because they know that the USA has influence over Israel. As long as the USA appears to be an honest broker (and staging little cat fights like this week’s doesn’t hurt) while actually supporting the Israelis, the Arabs will benefit from the USA’s attention (as the leaders of Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia have figured out, and perhaps someday the Palestinians and Syria will figure it out as well.)
The controversy may have started because of a screw-up, but Netanyahu and Obama would be fools to not milk this for all they can — they both benefit. And it is important to understand that the Palestinians benefit well. Since all three parties benefit, these fake arguments (“we feel insulted!”) are inevitable, and are actually helpful in forging a peace agreement.
So we’re sending a guy to fight a two wars, and he says “X” would be helpful and “Y” would be unhelpful.
Even if he’s correct that X would be helpful, and “Y” would be unhelpful, if “X” is an impossible goal, what difference does it make? And he didn’t say anything about what was unhelpful (e.g., building homes in east Jerusalem).
The “Palestinians” (i.e., the Arabs, and particularly the radical Islamists) are not going to make peace with Israel. If we’ve learned nothing else in the past sixty years, we should have learned that.
Well, you got me there Chris. I forgot about that. It seems Obama has too because all he’s done is tear Israel a new one since then. I have to laugh at your view of what he meant because the homicidal maniacs that call themselves Palestinians riot at the drop of a hat. The Israelis say something and the maniacs riot.
“Gen. Petraeus disagrees with you.”
Jim, you are full of crap. That is the only way to describe your bizarre interpretation of what he said. He talked about resolution of the conflicts, not leaving Israel holding their own. He knows if the Arab ME thought we were “dumping Israel” they would try to finish what they started in ’48.
Jim, Jim, Jim. He’s a TERRORIST who was honored for killing civilians, including children and an American on purpose.
As I said, the entire territory of Israel is disputed, so I don’t understand your point.
I was responding to John B, who stated that the East Jerusalem housing is “completely unrelated to any disputed territory.”
But it was you who said:
The “Palestinians” (i.e., the Arabs, and particularly the radical Islamists) are not going to make peace with Israel.
So the Egyptians and Jordanians aren’t Arabs anymore?
Jim, Jim, Jim. He’s a TERRORIST who was honored for killing civilians, including children and an American on purpose.
Bill, Bill, Bill. Menachem Begin was a TERRRORIST who killed civilians on purpose. And if Israel wants to honor him, they can — as it happens I was on Begin Boulevard in Beit She’an just last month.
The honor that Israelis and Palestinians give to terrorists is a symptom of the problem, but it isn’t the cause.
So the Egyptians and Jordanians aren’t Arabs anymore?
I didn’t say all Arabs were unwilling to make peace with Israel. I’m sure that most Christian ones would (though there are few of them) and even many Muslim ones. That would be a stupid belief, even for you. I was describing the Arab world at large. It hasn’t given up on its goal of the destruction of Israel. For many, it was simply set aside as politically impracticable, for the moment, given their historical military incompetence, and the loss of their ally, the Soviet Union.
And once the residents of the West Bank and Gaza were returned to their (smaller) native states (as a delayed result of aggression against Israel by Egypt and Jordan decades ago), it would be interesting, though not necessarily pleasant, to see what happens.
Menachem Begin was a TERRRORIST who killed civilians on purpose. And if Israel wants to honor him, they can — as it happens I was on Begin Boulevard in Beit She’an just last month.
No, he killed British troops, on purpose. The civilians were collateral.
Egypt turned away from the USSR when Sadat and Kissinger hit it off, long before the USSR fell apart. Jordan and Israel have had secret agreements all along — the USSR was never really a factor. The USSR and Lebanon (had no important relationship. The USSR and Saudi Arabia never got along. So when you say “the loss of their ally, the Soviet Union”, are you just referring to Syria? Because yeah, they lost an ally, not that an alliance with the USSR ever got them anywhere.
Jim, I’m interested in the fact that you were recently in Israel. Do you have any prognostications about Israel — on its prospects for peace, on its political scene, or on any other related subject?
(Rand, I know this isn’t a message board, but I bet Jim’s comments , if he wants to share any, on the general future of Israel would be interesting to all of us, whether we think he is great or otherwise…)
Egypt turned away from the USSR when Sadat and Kissinger hit it off, long before the USSR fell apart. Jordan and Israel have had secret agreements all along — the USSR was never really a factor.
OK. I see. So the fact that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion remains popular there there is irrelevant?
Yes. The popularity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is indeed irrelevant to the incorrectness of your claim regarding significance of the demise of the USSR.
Reading your comment less narrowly: It really is worth studying the relationships (both at the state level and at the street level) between Jordan and Israel.
Jim, I find your moral equivalence stunning. Begin wins a Nobel Peace prize with Sadat. Israel reveres Begin. The ARAB League kicks Egypt out and Islamists assassinate Sadat for making peace with Israel. Somehow, I don’t see Mughrabi winning a peace prize anytime soon. Although as outlandish as some of the recent awards have been, anything is possible.
Bob-1
To think Obama wouldn’t throw Israel under the bus for real would be a dangerous assumption for the government of Israel.
No, he killed British troops, on purpose. The civilians were collateral.
The victims in Deir Yassin were not British, were not troops, and they were not collateral damage.
Jim, I’m interested in the fact that you were recently in Israel. Do you have any prognostications about Israel — on its prospects for peace, on its political scene, or on any other related subject?
I was only there for a week, and would not claim any special insight, but here are some random thoughts: There’s a major effort to change the subject from the Palestinian question to Iran’s supposed nuclear ambitions. A retired IDF general told my group that they’d have missile defense systems within a year, but I didn’t hear anything about using them to defend Sderot or the Galilee from Hamas and Hezbollah rockets, respectively. The Goldstone Report is unpopular, to put it mildly, but the UN is popular as long as you’re talking about peacekeeping in Lebanon and pro-Israel declarations. Obama is unpopular, because they can’t count on him to support every IDF military action and Likud building project. No one is very interested in talking or hearing about living conditions in Gaza. The Jerusalem Post thinks it’s hypocritical for European countries to object to Mossad agents using their passports in order to assassinate Hamas leaders.
I don’t think Israel is living up to its stated ideals and intentions, but I’d also say that under equivalent circumstances, the U.S. would probably be doing much worse. Israel has a modern economy, a vibrant culture, an educated and productive citizenry, strong ties to and the financial support of the most powerful nation on Earth, and lots of nuclear weapons. At the moment, they also have the most conciliatory Palestinian leadership in history running the West Bank, and doing a decent job of it. It’s a big opportunity for Israel; I hope they don’t blow it just so they can build some apartments in East Jerusalem.