…at this administration’s betrayal of our only real ally in the Middle East:
Once it was thought to be unprincipled guilt-by-association for pro-Israeli, anti-Obama groups to question candidate Obama’s dubious associations; after all, Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Power, et al. were all on record as hostile to the Jewish state. Few likewise seemed to take note when a key Obama campaign foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in September 2009 suggested that the U.S. might, and perhaps should, shoot down Israeli planes over Iraq on their way to Iran: e.g., “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.” Then there was the nomination of Charles Freeman. And of course the present outreach to the two most terrorist-friendly regimes in the Middle East, theocratic Iran and authoritarian Syria. Someone from Mars might conclude that the United States has spent far more effort in courting Ahmadinejad and Assad than Netayanhau.
Each of these steps — and there are others — in isolation can be contextualized, but in aggregate they paint a pretty clear picture that for this administration the benefits of supporting Israel are far outweighed by the downside.
It seems like the only regime that this White House wants changed is the one in Jerusalem.
[Update mid morning]
Obama’s dangerous “diplomacy.”
Rand, I recommended “Much Too Promised Land”, and I still do. This latest post of your shows you don’t understand the relationship between the USA and Likud. Yes, Likud, not Israel. Likud stages fights with US presidents. Both sides benefit. Lets say one of Likud’s far-right allies wants to build on a block in East Jerusalem. If they stage a fight with the USA and then sucessfully build, it will appear that they stood to Israel’s biggest benefactor and got what they wanted while not losing US aid and goodwill. If they stage a fight with the USA and lose, well, it appears that they tried really hard, and the US can take the blame, not them. There is no downside for Likud and any far-right coalition it builds. It will never push so far that it drives the USA away, and it will always push right up to that point for domestic consumption with far-right voters. And the USA benefits too. It will never break with Israel, but it will stage fights with Likud to gain credibility with our Arab allies, to woo Arab undecideds, and to screw up the propaganda of Arab die-hard adversaries. Both sides benefit, and so just as Likud staged fights with the US during Begin’s time as PM, during Shamir’s time as PM, as Netanyahu did last time, it is doing it again. The only Likud PM to not stage a fight with the USA was Sharon, who was elected as the toughest meanest SOB in the middle east, and thus didn’t have to stage a fight before he unilaterally pulled out of Gaza. Of course, that was kind of weird for Likud, so he quit Likud and formed Kadima (and then sadly had a stroke). But now we’re back to Likud, and back to the fake fights.
Also: This has nothing to do with Obama (nor does it have anything to do with “pro-Israel” people (Jewish or otherwise) who work for Obama such as Rahm Emanuel, Hilary Clinton, David Axelrod, despite Netanyahu’s theatrical denouncement of them. It is all Likud theatre, and regardless of who is in the White House, it has happened before and it will happen again.
By the way, Labor plays a similar game, but instead of staging fights, they stage seductions. But they won’t go all the way – they are just a tease. Ehud Barak broke Clinton’s heart by teasing and not delivering.
Likud has to stand up to the USA to look like they sincerely want land. Labor has to cozy up to the USA to look peace-loving. In the end, Likud has to back down, lest they lose the center, while the left has to back away, again, lest they lose the center. The center wants peace (not land), but they want security more than anything else. The right won’t jeopardize Israel’s security by pushing away the USA, and the left won’t jeopardize Israel’s security by giving the Arabs too much. The answer is Nixon-to-China (ie a new Ariel Sharon). Netanyahu isn’t tough enough to be a new Ariel Sharon – he is weak, and that’s why he is staging a fight with the USA. Roll your eyes and wait for the next Israeli election.
Yes, right Bob. It’s Netenyahu who is “staging a fight.”
[rolling eyes at Bob’s naivety]
Do you know what the word “condemn” means in diplomatic circles?
And yet everyone involved is strangely silent on Palestinian violence in the West Bank. Go figure.
“This has nothing to do with Obama (nor does it have anything to do with “pro-Israel” people (Jewish or otherwise) who work for Obama such as Rahm Emanuel, Hilary Clinton, David Axelrod…”
Compared to who? Samantha Power, Chas Freeman?
They both are staging the fight. Also: my argument holds true even if the fight is real. Even if the fight is real, the following things are true: a) the fight won’t get very bad, b) it is in both parties’ interest, and c) this has happened before (with Likud), and it will happen again (with Likud or even Kadima or any center-right party). Read middle east peace negotiator’s Aaron David Miller’s Much Too Promised Land. Or, here, look, he predicted this whole thing in 2009 before Netanyahu’s election: http://www.newsweek.com/id/177716 (Note, in this short essay, he doesn’t get into the issue of the Left and the Right in Israel have postures that they will back away from. That’s in the book.)
“doesn’t get into the issue of how the left and the right in Israel both have postures that…”
On the other hand, Rev. Wright must be happy. “I was beginning to wonder if Barry had stopped hating the Jews, but it’s good to know I still have some influence on him.”