July 19, 2009
Time for a Re-Think
This is really extraordinary:
Throughout the political campaign Barack Obama argued that he was a staunch friend of Israel. In Cairo, in his ground-breaking speech to the Islamic world, he asserted America was committed to the security of Israel. Wherever he goes he says he is committed to upholding America's long history of supporting the Jewish state.So how come a Jerusalem Post poll conducted late last month says only six percent of Israelis think the Obama administration is pro-Israel, down from almost five times that in the early weeks of the administration? This is such a low number that it clearly cuts across all parties, demographic and social groups within Israel. It effectively says that something that Obama has done in his first six months in office has convinced virtually all the Israeli people (at least to the extent the poll is truly representative of the people of Israel) that he's not what he said he was.
I was in Israel when President Obama was inaugurated. I watched the inauguration on television in Jerusalem at the American Jewish Committee office. Most Israelis in the room seemed deeply moved, much more so than I was. Some were nearly in tears. I wonder how they feel now.
Precious little, if any, good is likely to come from this. Michael Doran lays it all out at the Middle East Strategy at Harvard Web site. I strongly suggest you read the whole thing, but here's the bottom line:
The White House has sacrificed some credibility on the Israeli side, but it surely must have recouped its losses by garnering Arab goodwill. Think again.Posted by Michael J. Totten at July 19, 2009 2:10 AM[…]
The American engine is revving loudly, but the administration cannot put the car in gear, because significant obstacles block the way. President Obama will soon realize, if he hasn’t already, that the map that his advisers handed him does not match the terrain of the region. He can take some consolation in the fact that every president before him has reached a similar point in the road. Some of them, like Eisenhower, developed new maps as they went along. Others, like Carter, never did. Their place in history has, in part, been determined by their ability to chart a new course.
This predictable mess was a big reason why for the first time in my life I did not vote for a Democrat. Part of the problem here in America is that media does not report the many events taking place that Israelis obviously are aware of. When they do, the news is shuffled to the back pages behind stories like who fathered Michael Jackson’s children.
The NYT and WaPo do not report the nefarious behavior by Hamas and Fatah or the elements affecting the conflict created by Iran or even AQ. In that regard, I give Robert Spencer some credit despite his solutions bordering on the psychopathic (I refer to suggestions of conversion or death). Our media has put filters on their reporting in an effort to give the Emperor some clothes. Without the many facts and failures of Obamian policy to date reported clearly the American public, his administration is allowed to peddle their wishful thinking without much opposition from even American Jewry. While I haven’t completely given up hope Obama can throw some of his advisors under the bus, the time is running short for him to stop the downward trend of his administration's credibility.
Posted by: maxtrue
at July 19, 2009 7:13 AM
I think the bottom line is that Israel will have to provide for its own security vis a vis Iran. Sooner is better than later.
Godspeed Israel.
Posted by: mcmill1599 at July 19, 2009 7:23 AM
Dunno if it's a comparison, but once the 'geniuses' at Ford pushed out the Edsel. People ignored the car. And, it stayed stuck on the showroom floor.
Was part of the Edsel's problem the fact that the front grill looked like a urinal? What went wrong when you just couldn't sell something using your strong arm of PR?
Yes, today, I know that Obama's health care legislation is no longer being demanded to "pass" congress by the Obama deadline of August 7th. Legislators are gonna be going home.
While America's economy stagnates. The threats of 'cap-and-trade?" Again, met with enough opposition that the "majority of politicians in the democratic congress got to feel much "except fear, itself."
Recovering from these miss-steps will not be any different that trying to force the genie back in the bottle.
What is also not being told is that the sunni arabs refuse to give Obama a single "goody" he can profer to the Israelis. (Letting a few Israeli war ships through the Suez didn't cut the mustard.)
While in Iraq, Americans are told they cannot defend their convoy resupply runs, anymore. They've just been made more dangerous. That Maliki is attached to iran at the hip? I'm not surprised. But I am surprised the Pentagon brass seems clueless. And, they have no plans on how they can extricate themselves from this very sad situation.
I know you don't believe me, when I said "unemployment" is a hidden reason we just don't cut our losses; and instead seem hell bent on staying in hostile territory. Where now America has their own "Shalit." Caught by tribesmen in Afghanistan. It happened because the soldier was a straggler.
If there's anything ahead for us? It will be this poor soldier, still unnamed by America's press.
Boondoggles. Turns out if you're gonna fight, most Americans would prefer that our troops "showed no mercy."
You want to ask "how will Obama talk himself out of this one?" Gee. It might not even matter. If he can't convince enough Americans to follow him on Saul Alinsky's path. (That's what "can" happen to the donks. They're gonna be seen as socialists. The party, itself, may discover "there's no way PR, alone, sells the Edsel.")
Posted by: Carol_Herman at July 19, 2009 10:11 AM
Carol, you could stick to the topic at hand instead of using it to launch a partisan rant. You down play an interesting Sunni/Israeli convergence which is more than just letting a few Israeli warships pass through the Suez and ignore the efforts of Egypt and even the election results in Lebanon. Thus you fail to see the opportunities.
Your depiction leaves little any American President could do short of bombing Islam into conversion or death, yes? Obama's poll numbers still are higher that Bush's and Alinsky doesn’t matter much to the public.
I can think of several sensible things this administration can do to correct policy and they don't include giving Israel a green light on new settlements or nuking Iran into glass. Perhaps for once you could offer some smart ideas or would that be too difficult a rational task?
On second thought, I already know where that suggestion would lead......
Posted by: maxtrue at July 19, 2009 10:29 AM
One problem Obama seems to have had all his life (not just in politics) is that he charms and befriends virtually everyone he comes into contact with. The problem with that is that when you befriend people, they sometimes (surprisingly!) expect you to actually make good on that friendship and behave like a friend would. There's nothing wrong with this personality trait of Obama's but he needs to work on the part where he maintains those relationships, once he makes them.
As far as Israel goes... Obama seems to be a fan of sending governments (and people) messages via speeches and press releases. I don't think he necessarily means everything he says in his official public statements. I think sometimes he is just trying to get through people's thick skulls that things they view as absolute truths, may not be. I don't condemn him for that, because that's a pretty good way of dealing with the arrogant and the stubborn. At the end of the day, though, it is changes in policy which broadcast US intent, not rhetoric.
Posted by: programmmer_craig at July 19, 2009 1:19 PM
Assuming befriending follows once ambition has charmed the uncritical is a naive leap; take a look under the bus. Partisan rant? Guilty; my country's sliding down the drain.
Posted by: Paul S. at July 19, 2009 4:04 PM
anyone read the comments on the FP link?
Posted by: A-Squared at July 19, 2009 7:12 PM
Anyone read the comments on the FP link? Thoughts/reactions? In the Israeli-Pal debate you can usually tell if someone has their opinion set by the language they use (illegal occupation, years of opression, apartheid policy, racist this or that). Some of these commentators claim they are pro-Israel, but from what I've known this type of language/views are some of the worst underhanded anti-Israel perspectives out there. Do you think they have merit to their views? It seems interesting in light of the fact that they disagree adamently with the points of the author, see Obama as really focusing on reining in the settlements for their own sake, and still think Obama is doing the right thing. Basically, they disagree on interpretation, causality, and morality. Do you guys feel the same way?
Posted by: A-Squared at July 19, 2009 7:17 PM
Most Americans have seen their press corp stand up and salute Obama. Where no such thing was shown to Bush.
What we have, instead of views you'd get from many angles, is an attempt to give Obama a pass. It's as if journalism, these days, has been supplanted by PR. (It's not going to work.)
While Obama started off with plenty of "wind to his back." People in Israel, as well as in the United States, gave him the presidency, because McCain, by comparison, was such a leadership failure.
But why do presidents often make choices that bring them to shame? (And, I'm not just talking about Bill Clinton and Monica.) I'm talking about LBJ. And, a misguided war in Vietnam. I'm talking about Nixon. I'm talking about Gerald Ford. I'm talking about Jimmy Carter, here. And, for good measure, I'll throw in both Bush presidencies.
You'd think the temptations would be different. And, the mistakes of others would give you some sort of handicap ... on why you, yourself, wouldn't want to knock yourself out ... aiming at the ball ... Let's say the way Dubya did.
But Obama picked Dubya's team. What are Americans supposed to make of this? Different teams. Where's the "hope and change?"
PR, by the way, is a fool's game. It's on par with plastic surgery to keep you "looking young." But it robs your face of any ability to show emotion. It's definitely NOT pretty.
Of course, famous people still hire the knife wielders. Won't win your wars. Worse, you can lose market positions. While lots of citizens, to stay informed, keep trying to follow "the bouncing ball."
Posted by: Carol_Herman at July 19, 2009 7:23 PM
Israel can improve how it is perceived in the US by improving the performance of the IDF:
http:
//
www.maannews.net/eng
/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=212872
The IDF prioritizes protecting itself over protecting Palestinian civilians (the opposite of the Petraeus COIN strategy) according to this article.
What is Israel doing to facilitate Palestinian private sector development? What is Israel doing to train and equip high quality Palestinian security forces (which would enable Israel to transfer security responsibilities from the IDF to the Palestinians more quickly)?
Posted by: anand at July 19, 2009 8:32 PM
"The IDF prioritizes protecting itself over protecting Palestinian civilians (the opposite of the Petraeus COIN strategy) according to this article."
And what is wrong with that?
Why do you even mention COIN here?
Iraqis are supposedly not enemies, Palestinians pretty much are.
"What is Israel doing to facilitate Palestinian private sector development?"
What Palestinians are doing to facilitate Palestinian private sector development?
And why do you expect Israelis worry about Palestinian future more than Palestinians themselves do?
"What is Israel doing to train and equip high quality Palestinian security forces (which would enable Israel to transfer security responsibilities from the IDF to the Palestinians more quickly)?"
Been there, done that. Did not work, though. There is no amount of training that will help Palestinians unless and until their psyche will drastically change.
Posted by: leo at July 19, 2009 9:44 PM
Israel can improve how it is perceived in the US by improving the performance of the IDF.
I agree, but it's largely a conscript army, with all the realistic expectations that should entail.
What is Israel doing to facilitate Palestinian private sector development?
I found a recent New York Times article entitled "Signs of Hope Emerge in the West Bank" rather encouraging. (Not sure if there's still a problem with links in comments, but you can Google it.) A quote from the article:
"The Israelis have pulled their forces to the outskirts of four cities, greatly reduced the number of permanent checkpoints and promised to help industry develop. They say the Palestinians now need courts, prisons and trained judges."
What is Israel doing to train and equip high quality Palestinian security forces?
Also from the article:
"Palestinian troops have been training in Jordan under American sponsorship [...] and their skills, along with those of the European-trained police force here, have made a huge difference. An important element in making the Palestinian force effective [...] was taking young Palestinian men out of the ancestral grips of their villages and tribal clans and training them abroad, turning them into soldiers loyal to units and commanders."
The article seems to suggest that Israel should continue exploiting the rift between Fatah and Hamas.
Posted by: johnchen at July 20, 2009 12:35 AM
Anand
Why is it Israel’s job to support the Palestinian private sector? The Palestinians have received more aid per capita than any other people in the world. The Palestinian areas aren’t a welfare slum because of a lack of support. It’s a slum because of a culture of corruption and self-destructive behavior. Nothing will improve, economically, until the culture changes
Posted by: Boojum at July 20, 2009 9:16 AM
I have tried and tried, and I don't understand. I just don't get it. Can someone help me?
I understand why some in the U.S. were so moved by Obama's election. They come from a different world view than me. Obama is a Fabian Socialist, or a proponent of gradual wealth transfer via nationalistic means. I disagree, so my chagrin at his election. So in America it is fairly simple. You're a socialist or not, and the difference will tell one something of how s/he sees the current administration.
But Israel is just as enigmatic of a situation as I can imagine. Is this self-hatred? Is it self-loathing, or a desire to atone for some sins, real or imagined? Do they not wish to continue to exist? How could they be moved almost to tears over the election of Obama? How?
I know what Obama is purported to have said pre-election, but he said enough contradictory things that it should have been clear to them. Most rational men and women could see the duplicity, so I am naturally assuming that it's something deeper in the Jewish psyche.
Posted by: Herschel Smith at July 20, 2009 10:40 AM
Anand has an agenda re the Pals, and he both persistent, consistent (and annoying) in following his agenda.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at July 20, 2009 1:45 PM
Anand has an agenda re the Pals, and he both persistent, consistent (and annoying) in following his agenda.
He should start up his own "Free the Pals" website.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at July 20, 2009 1:46 PM
@Herschel: I don't think Israelis wept with joy at Obama's election. Obama's links with Khalidi and Reverend Wright generated skepticism. Maybe the AJC wept.
People all over the administration like Dennis Ross understand the situation better than Obama.
The Israeli/Palestinian/Iran situation is not a top-tier concern in US politics, compared to the economy, Iraq, AfPak or medical care. This means Obama can probably keep pushing his losing position for years. But Congress is still a wild card.
The other wild card is Hamas, it could blow up and change the rosy view in the White House.
Many Americans will feel that the conflicts in Iraq and AfPak are hard on Muslim allies, and will want to compensate by pulling back on Israel. They aren't deep thinkers and automatically relate to "Fairness".
The US won't get anything from Israel pulling out of "Settlements", but to prove this requires Israeli sacrifice. One stalemate is similar to all the other stalemates, so it might not matter as much as we think. What the US wants in the Middle East is oil, stability and eliminating al Queda. I think stability means peace.
Domestic events in Iran may have an impact.
Posted by: Fred at July 20, 2009 4:11 PM
Herschel,
Just one American conservative's two cents' worth here, from far across the pond: in the case of the American electorate's 2008 majority decision at least, I suspect results reflected much less of an examined choice compared to simply choosing "change" while the economy was trending south after eight years of an unpopular presidency.
Living in perhaps America's most liberal city, I was struck by the absence of posters and bumper stickers last Fall compared to previous election years. Of course, the choice here is always presumed. But young Democratic campaign signature gatherers I talked to told me they felt they weren't being paid enough for their efforts. So much for enthusiastic volunteerism.
And over 56,000,000 of us rejected the majority's choice.
Posted by: Paul S. at July 20, 2009 4:14 PM
That above noted current low approval rating for Obama in Israel contrasting with the initial positive emotional reaction to his election is going to be replicated gradually and more clearly here at home in America. We're learning that he's honed superlative articulateness and eloquence along with quick ad hoc responses to just about everything. His fast talking salesmanship is going to become his gradual undoing.
Posted by: Morningside at July 20, 2009 4:31 PM
Morningside,
The rush to avoid those "Wait a minute..." responses analysis may trigger. Any time any politician tells me a decision is urgent my bs detector goes off. Sound policy stands up to scrutiny.
Posted by: Paul S. at July 20, 2009 5:34 PM
Herschel,
I know a few people on both sides of the political spectrum in Israel. The murder of Rabin created a split in a predominantly secular country. You have the Greater Israel block clearly going beyond what the founders espoused and the peacenik crowd that have had some its people shot dead by the IDF.
Israelis projected what they wished to see in Obama. The hawks were angry at Gates and the waning days of the Bush administration. They hoped like the rest of America that somehow Obama could do all things. Israelis misread the basis of Jewish American support in Obama never suspecting the American Press would let Obama off the hook for his comments that day in Iowa when he declared defiance in the face of Iranian missile tests and continued enrichment.
The root cause lies in America, that we did not hold Obama to a standard of consistency. Perhaps Israelis were confused with names like Axelrod or Emanuel. Obama talked tough with APIPAC one day and then blasted Likud-thinking objectionists another. He argued against missile defense for more than a year and then sported an ABM conversion as he pivoted center in the general election. He declared Iraq was Lost never admitting any concession to McCain and then threatened to bomb Pakistan and bring overwhelming force to bear in Afghanistan. Against this, Israelis had first Olmert and then Netanyahu with far less charm and eloquence. In the end, it was wishful thinking brought on by both the collapse of the GOP, the stagnation and wavering of its policies and the vague and contradictory promises of a charismatic personality from a Party Jews have traditionally supported. Jewish pundits here in America never warned of the dangers.
Wasn't it General Odum who supplied Obama his blueprint? What pressure within the military is there to resist the strategic decisions this administration may consider in following the General's advice regardless of verification and the likely broken promises by our adversaries? And your take of Strafor's read on the situation in Iran posted in a thread below?
at July 20, 2009 6:30 PM
Herschel, the Strafor article is in the Marg Bar post.
Posted by: maxtrue at July 20, 2009 6:40 PM
Hello, programmer_craig and Paul S...
Won't it be interesting when all of Obama's charmed new friends start saying..."Hey, man, ...wait a minute, didn't you tell me that you'd-----------"?
...everyone now fill in his/her understanding in the blank space I've provided.
Start your engines..
at July 20, 2009 6:53 PM
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Yesterday, up on the Net, I saw Stacy McCain's piece. It was linked through Glenn Reynolds.
Basically, McCain blew his chances of winning the contest with Obama, on September 24, 2008. When he parachuted into Bush's meeting. And, in transit, also canceled his debate. (Which, afterwards, he re-instated.)
After McCain did this. After McCain supported the bail out, there was no way he was going to win.
You think only in Iran they had a choice between unlikeable candidates? HELLO.
Obama won because McCain lost. And, the GOP lost the confidence of the American people, back in 2006. Perhaps one party's political ads were better than the other. But Dubya had trouble articulating.
I guess Obama became over-confident? He can articulate with the best teleprompters.
While the democrats seem to be "all progressives." WHile lots of AMericans were unaware of the democrats zeal for taxing people. And, having plans that grow government. When, as I said, on September 24, 2008 McCain lost his bid for the presidency, because he saw no harm in backing "the bailout."
As to Foreign Policy, what has surprised me the most! Is that Obama didn't even seem reluctant to pick up Dubya's entire Mideast policy. As if doing James Baker's bidding was a strong suit.
Did no one not notice that the Bush family legacy got burned up?
Politics is about capital. About convincing people to buy your name.
Did Obama realize that within seven months his popularity would erode?
Today, I met cousins, who I know were Obama fans. And, one of them said "Obama will only be a one-termer." How is it that a fan can begin to suspect such a dynamic loss of popularity?
Oh, and once it's gone. "How do you get to claim it back?" At least I know August 7th is no longer a "health care" deadline.
Do presidents fail? Well, let me see. Can I count the ways? LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter ... and both Bush's. (While most surprising to me, of all, Bill Clinton with his pants around his knees, couldn't be tossed out of office by a bunch of blue noses.) Follow politics long enough, and you'll start to see "patterns."
Posted by: Carol_Herman at July 20, 2009 8:03 PM
Carol: I don't mean to insult you, but will you please write grammatically correct sentences? Your "style" is giving me a headache. Thank you.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 20, 2009 8:22 PM
On the one hand, I strongly question and suspect the methodology and stochastic randomness of this poll. Sorry. According to JP Obama started at 30% in Israel?
On the other hand, something like this is to be expected. Client states that have captured the domestic politics of their sponsor by turning themself into a symbol and spooning with the elite rarely like it when someone emerges with the guts to face reality.
We've given more foreign aid to Israel in the past decade than to any country in the world. Three or four times more than any country in the world other than Egypt. And same for the last decade. They're a rich, high-tech country and we're subsidizing their entire country to the tune of nearly $1000 a citizen. Meanwhile, hungry kids are dying across Africa. What could our foreign policy folks do with another $3 billion to build against extremism in Africa?
If Obama is unpopular in Israel, it means he's doing his job. Bush's absolute refusal to confront their behavior in any way - in fact, to egg them on in all their worst mistakes - has not helped their country then and will not help it now. A constant supply of cheap, unconditional validation fueled by bribes and political fear becomes an addictive drug. Israel's political and economic elite is used to that. Their petty sense of victimization may, probably will, trickle down to the citizens.
Obama takes a heck of a risk in standing up to Israel - as demonstrated by credulous, shallow, and subservient articles such as in TNR, four hundred different conservative rags, and 100 or so mirror images in the MSM. The number of "Oh boy the Jews are gonna take Obama down, desert him, tank his popularity" articles written in regular media started immediately upon his winning the primary and won't go away.
It's enough to get a window into how people with a poor understanding of how the world works could come to believe that certain ethnic or, religious groups, or (more accurately) self-organized faux-representational fragments of the above, have disproportionate influence on the media. (of course, they use the phrase "control").
To the army of descending trolls, I do not equate the fact that a bizzarely high number of stories about how any non-hawk is preparing to sell out Israel tend to appear, with conspiracy theories. Human laziness and dogmatism explains a lot. Thanks.
Posted by: glasnost at July 21, 2009 4:46 AM
Obama takes a heck of a risk in standing up to Israel - as demonstrated by credulous, shallow, and subservient articles such as in TNR, four hundred different conservative rags, and 100 or so mirror images in the MSM.
I forgot to include, "and BS like these blog posts".
I'd like to see you articulate what your actual problem is with Obama's policy on Israel right now, Mike. I think you've failed pretty hard to make that clear. You've mostly stuck with the vague quasi-conclusion that "(the fifteen or so I talk to) American Jews are pissed, Obama must be messing this up". No sale.
Posted by: glasnost at July 21, 2009 4:49 AM
The article wasn't terrible. To give credit where it was due. I mean, there were some interesting meanderings in between the opening and closing mandatory BS conclusions.
Posted by: glasnost at July 21, 2009 4:50 AM
I might as well say something nice - I thought that that was a pretty nuanced take by craig.
Posted by: glasnost at July 21, 2009 4:52 AM
Glasnost;
Israel largely funds itself through its better organized economy and more productive democracy. It is entirely correct for America to support the only functional democracy in the Middle East and to defend itself against the murderous religious bigotry of its neighbors
The rich countries have already given the equivalent of several Marshall Plans to Africa. If all those billions of aid dollars haven’t eliminated hungry kids and conflict in Africa, then no amount of money will. The fault for Africa’s problems lie within the Africans themselves.
Posted by: Boojum at July 21, 2009 7:23 AM
Here's an excellent commentary on our current State Department's approach to Israel:
< http://www.danielpipes.org/7464/obama-israel-into-the-abyss >
Posted by: Morningside
at July 21, 2009 7:36 AM
Quite so. Neither side is interested in peace. Obama is wasting time and energy better spent on issues of actual consequence for Americans.
Posted by: Big Jilm at July 21, 2009 7:43 AM
Israel is not "the only functional democracy in the Middle East." Turkey is another. Iraq is becoming another. Lebanon might become another.
Israel is a rich country with a booming venture capital and high tech economy. Israel works closely with it friends in Russia, China, India, Japan, Turkey and Germany. Israel doesn't need US aid. Israel accepting US aid actually reduces Israeli influence over the US, and is against Israeli interests.
Boojum, have you read about Millennium challenge accounts? Only some African applicants for aid get it; only the ones who improve their own governance and policies. Africa needs more aid, but it should be selectively and opportunistically applied. When a good quality African government presents itself (such as in Tanzania, Uganda and Ghana today), they should be supported. Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other countries should have to reform before receiving aid.
Posted by: anand at July 21, 2009 10:19 AM
After Pakistan, AQ linked networks and their affiliated Takfiri groupies are likely to try to relocate in Africa. The world has a strong strategic interest in facilitating increased African capacity (in governance, military/police, private sector business development.)
Remember that the largest sanctuary in the world for AQ linked networks outside of Pakistan is Somalia. Half of Africans are muslim and poor.
Posted by: anand at July 21, 2009 10:27 AM
Glasnost,
A few days ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city's east. This is the policy of an open city, an undivided city that has no separation according to religion."
I'm sorry you and Barack Obama think that's unreasonable. I think you're both frankly nuts for having such a serious problem with this.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 21, 2009 11:00 AM
I don't think Barack Obama has a problem with free investment agreements between Palestinians and Israelis (allowing both peoples to freely buy and sell property across all of historic Palestine.) What is objected to is Israeli use of eminent domain type laws to confiscate Palestinian private property at below market prices or for no price at all.
The Israelis should also make a one time payment for all previous confiscated Palestinian private and public property. Perhaps more than 40 out of Israel's 120 settlements include confiscated Palestinian property.
I would like to verify, however: Can Palestinians from the occupied territories freely buy, sell and own Israeli property? Israeli stocks, bonds, land and businesses? Allowing this would be a sign of good faith on Israel's part.
Posted by: anand at July 21, 2009 11:20 AM
Anand, you write: "Israelis should make a one time payment for all previous confiscated Palestinian private and public property." Arab governments, for their part, should make payment for all the properties they confiscated from the Jewish people whom they also stripped of all citizenship and then expelled, telling them they had no right of return.
Posted by: Harold at July 21, 2009 11:55 AM
Anand: What is objected to is Israeli use of eminent domain type laws to confiscate Palestinian private property at below market prices or for no price at all.
That is not even remotely accurate.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 21, 2009 12:21 PM
Obama pulled the same stunt with the gay community, calling himself our "fierce defender" and really making an effort to court us and more importantly, get our money. And he succeeded. And now we see what a liar he was, so I am not surprised that he did the same thing regarding Israel.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at July 21, 2009 12:54 PM
Harold,
I would add that all parties that collectively and individually caused the loss of life and treasure attacking Israel for more than 60 years should pay them compensation. This should include besides the obvious culprits, Russia, Iran, Iraq and even China who allowed their weapons to fall into the hands of Hizb'Allah.
at July 21, 2009 1:48 PM
Glastnost,
"We've given more foreign aid to Israel in the past decade than to any country in the world. Three or four times more than any country in the world other than Egypt. And same for the last decade. They're a rich, high-tech country and we're subsidizing their entire country to the tune of nearly $1000 a citizen."
The majority of aid to Israel is a subsidy for the defense industry. Over 75% of military (the largest category) of aid to Israel is spent in direct purchases from the American defense industry.
The alliance with Israel is just that: an alliance. And it’s a good one. The US can depend without a doubt on more or less unequivocal Israeli support. If you think that’s worthless, think again. Israel has on numerous occasions served as a significant asset for US interests
-During the Cold War, Israel consistently served as bulwark of American strategic interests and activities in the American-Soviet competition for influence in the ME.
-US influence on, or in this case, more properly control of, Israeli action following the Yom Kippur war was a major factor in swaying Egypt from the Soviet camp to the US camp.
-During Black September Jordan sought to evict the PLO, who at the time was under the Soviet sphere of influence, following the PLO’s threat to the pro-Western Jordanian government. At this point Syria, another Soviet ally, massed tank formations on the Syrian-Jordanian border, an implied threat to cease actions against the PLO. Under US direction, Israel began aggressive military posturing towards Syria, at which point the Syrians withdrew their forces from the border (and did NOT deploy the majority to the Israeli border… i.e. the nature of this as a threat re the Jordanians was understood).
-During 1991 the US directed Israel to refrain from responding to Iraqi Scud bombing, undermining Saddam’s claim as the leader of anti-Zionism. This both reduced general support for Saddam, and allowed the US to retain the Arab members of its coalition, helping defend its ally and major oil source, Kuwait. In addition, this period saw a strengthening of US-Saudi relations, which would have been unlikely without Saudi involvement in the coalition. This involvement would have likely been impossible with an Israeli response to Iraqi aggression.
-In Washington’s push to build relations with India, Israel has proved useful, including through military cooperation. These have included sales of UAVs whose technology is partially owned by the US, and sales of components of the Green Pine radar system, of which the US also has partial ownership.
-The US had directed Israel to cease backdoor peace talks with Syria when pressuring the Syrians post-9/11.
-The US has vetoed Israeli defense contracts with Venezuela.
-Israel provided military support for Georgia largely under US direction
-And I guess, paradoxically, the US has been able to use anti-Israel sentiment to its benefit, such as Obama’s image of “standing up” to Israel in order to gain traction in the Arab world.
Basically, the US is able to more or less dictate the foreign relations of Israel. I have no idea how people manage to gloss this over; especially in a region of the world like the ME, this is HUGE.
In addition…
-The US can depend on complete Israeli cooperation in virtually any military scenario.
-The US military bases assets in Israel, and can depend on being able to base pretty much anything it wants in Israel; this is not necessarily the case with Saudi. See Oil Embargo
-Joint US-Israeli military projects have yielded significant advances for US military technology, such as major components of the Arrow anti-missile system, which have informed the multitude of American anti-missile projects.
-Following 9/11, the US went to the Israelis for anti-terrorism expertise. Homeland security was more or less built under Israeli guidance.
-Israel is major trading partner for the US in non-military goods. The alliance boosts and secures this trade.
Israeli public sympathy for the US is virtually guaranteed. Israeli commitment to the alliance is ironclad, for reasons more than “they give us money”. The cultures are very similar, and there is a mild idolization of the US in Israel, besides which America has been one of the only countries that has been consistently good to the Jews.
The US-Israeli alliance is enduring, extensive, and quite robust. That’s a very rare thing in geopolitics. Especially if you’re interested in a long-term perspective, which you should be, there is enormous value in a dependable alliance with a country that is competent and shares most of your values.
"…Their petty sense of victimization may, probably will, trickle down to the citizens… credulous, shallow, and subservient articles such as in TNR… conservative rags… mirror images in the MSM."
Angry much?
P.S. how do you use italics on the Comments box?
Posted by: A-Squared at July 21, 2009 2:49 PM
A-Squared: Thank you for this remarkable post. I might add to your list that Israel backed off from selling weaponry to China a number of years ago due to strong US pressure not to sell arms to the Chinese. Such a sale would have been highly lucrative for Israel, and yet they bowed to US pressure and paid a price for it, i.e. strained relations between Israel & China.
Posted by: Harold at July 21, 2009 3:24 PM
Good post A-Squared. Besides the role played in ousting the Russians from Afghanistan, one can also mention the contribution to allied technologies and the fact that American support of Israel grew naturally from the role American Jews played in America's economy, particularly science, healthcare. communications and the MIC.
One trend however a bit alarming given the administration's public declarations is the recent signal sent by Israel involving UAVs sold to Russia. I believe Israel is also planning to take over Russia's space port as they move to another more modern facility. In addition, Debka reports the administration has still not moved on certain Israeli missile defense requests while Obama moves forward with approving weapons via Turkey to the Lebanese army, many of which will likely land in the hands of Hizb'Allah sympathizers.
It would not be in either nation's strategic interest to shake this very successful relationship.
Posted by: maxtrue at July 21, 2009 5:12 PM
"Israel is not "the only functional democracy in the Middle East." Turkey is another. Iraq is becoming another. Lebanon might become another."
I would agree in regard to Turkey.
Iraq is probably not closer to democracy than it war 6 years ago, unfortunately.
And with Lebanon you are mistaking anarchy for democracy. They have potential though.
at July 21, 2009 7:11 PM
"Israel accepting US aid actually reduces Israeli influence over the US, and is against Israeli interests."
I agree completely, but I am American and if I can find the way to have an influence if only to calm my ego I will. As for Israelis, it is hard to say no to "free" money. Win-win for both.
Posted by: leo at July 21, 2009 7:17 PM
Here is how:
< i> how do you use italics on the Comments box? < /i>
Just remove space after '<'. I used it just to fool your browser.
Posted by: leo at July 21, 2009 7:21 PM
A few days ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city's east. This is the policy of an open city, an undivided city that has no separation according to religion."
Mike, I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not even aware of whatever hair-splitting east jerusalem issue you're reffering to. And why should I? It's not mentioned anywhere in either of the links to this post. (It may or may not be a hair-splitter, or it may be a serious issue, i do not know what you're reffering to).
Your post is not a post about whether Netanyahu's East Jerusalem policy makes sense. the JP's poll and all this concern toll punditry has nothing to do with some sort of semi-defensible marginal issue like that. It's being generated for two reasons:
#1 a strong push for a settlement freeze by the USG for the first time in US-Israel history, something that all uncrazy people admit would be a good thing
#2 the caveman logic that anything other than unquestioning obedience to the most anti-palestinian logic on all possible issues represents Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, or a secret pro-Muslim, or a namby-pamby dove whose desire to get everyone to play nice will lead to the return of the caliphate.
When everything else but East Jersualem is dealt with - when the hilltop settlers are broken, and Hebron is dealt with, and Ariel is canceled, and Maaleh Adunim is negotiated into acceptance or relocated or whatever, then it might be about East Jerusalem. Until then, sorry. I'm not nuts. You're nuts.
PS: I really, really, really doubt that the reality of East Jerusalem is remotely like what Benjamin Netanyahu's airy speeches or what may (or may not) be written in the law books. Show me some actual purchasing statistics, thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JNF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_demographic_policies_towards_Jerusalem
Over roughly three decades, from 1967 to 1995, of some 76,151 housing units built in Jerusalem, 64,867 (88%) were allocated for Jewish residents. 59% of these units were built in East Jerusalem, as new Jewish neighbourhoods.14
In 1981, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that non-Jews could not buy property in the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem so as to "preserve the homogeneity" of the Jewish Quarter. On the other hand, no law prohibits Jews from buying property or living in East Jerusalem.20 Israel Shahak, citing the ruling, wrote that:'only Jews have a right to permanent residence in Jerusalem as a natural right. .the state of Israel does not recognize the right of an Arab or another non-Jew to live in Jerusalem even if he was born there’.21 The efforts of fundamentalist Jewish groups who enjoyed government backing in attempts to take over Palestinian homes in the Muslim and Christian Quarters of the Old City between 1993 and 2000 are cited by Rubenberg as one example of the Judaization of Jerusalem. Meron Benvenisti writes that these groups succeeding in taking over several buildings, "but only after receiving massive assistance from the government to, among other things, finance an extensive system of armed guards to protect them day and night, and hire armed guards for their children anytime they go out into the streets.
In March 2009, defending its planned demolitions against Palestinian houses in the Bustan area of Silwan that would leave 1,500 people homeless, Jerusalem authorities said the houses were built illegally, without zoning and construction permits. Palestinians and human rights organisations countered that "Israel makes it almost impossible for Palestinians to get the requisite permits, as a part of the policy to Judaise the eastern part of the city."24
Oh look.
I found my own statistics.
I don't know what is worse, that you're conflating Netanyahu's East Jerusalem policies with "Israel is mad at Barack Obama", or that your apparent perspective on Netanyahu's East Jerusalem policy is so easily discredited as a nice gloss on a highly discriminatory system. You're really insulting my intelligence and your own today.
Time to stop before I start cursing.
at July 22, 2009 3:35 AM
A few days ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "There is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the west of the city, and there is no ban on Jews building or buying in the city's east. This is the policy of an open city, an undivided city that has no separation according to religion."
I'm sorry you and Barack Obama think that's unreasonable
I have literally no idea what you're talking about, and neither does anyone else in this thread. Nothing in your post and nothing in your links makes any direct reference to East Jerusalem issues whatsoever. It's just a ooooh, Israelis hate Obama = Obama must be ..(unstated).
First.
Second, if you want to get into East Jerusalem defending that ridiculous statement, you will regret it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_demographic_policies_towards_Jerusalem
Over roughly three decades, from 1967 to 1995, of some 76,151 housing units built in Jerusalem, 64,867 (88%) were allocated for Jewish residents. 59% of these units were built in East Jerusalem, as new Jewish neighbourhoods.14
In March 2009, defending its planned demolitions against Palestinian houses in the Bustan area of Silwan that would leave 1,500 people homeless, Jerusalem authorities said the houses were built illegally, without zoning and construction permits. Palestinians and human rights organisations countered that "Israel makes it almost impossible for Palestinians to get the requisite permits, as a part of the policy to Judaise the eastern part of the city."24
Go tell me how many zoning and construction permits were granted to Arabs in the Jerusalem area in the past three decades and then come back here and spew that Netanyahu BS. Anand is right. You're ignorant.
Third,
The avalanche of concern trolling punditry on how Obama Is Mean To Israel, first, has nothing to do with Netanyahu's East Jerusalem policy, which 99 of 100 American Jews have no idea about, and which I think most Israeli Jews are ignorant of BO's position on aforesaid.
It has a lot more to do with:
#1: BO Admin's demand for a GENERAL settlement freeze, seen by all noncrazy people as long overdue and for the first time in history
#2 The Caveman/political takedown meme think that BO is a secret Muslim, or a secret pro-Muslim, or a namby-pamby dove who will invite the Caliphate through appeasement, that occurs when any democrat takes something other than slavish verbal support for everything hawkish Israel does.
#3 the overlapping of mainstream elite American Jewish organizations with political conservativism.
A lot of your stuff has been pretty good lately, so I'm coming down on you pretty hard, but this series of posts has made no sense. Really. The "oooh Israel is mad at BO" line is a bit shallow but ok, but you've gone from that to "Israel is mad at BO, thus the admin must be running off a cliff". but you've failed to articulate any logic for the above. And when questioned you've tried to tie it back to East Jerusalem, where the Israel government is 100% in the wrong, but it's sort of irrelevant because this is in no way about East Jerusalem. There are much more obvious wrongs to be dealt with before we get down to that day-to-day massive bureaucratic discrimination.
Posted by: glasnost at July 22, 2009 3:48 AM
A-Squared,
if the alliance to Israel is any good, it shouldn't take $3 billion a year in bribe money. We're not paying that to other legit US allies.
I am indeed aware of your points. They're all pretty expendable. But I'm not in any way arguing that we can't or shouldn't support Israel. You know, in that general, vague sense that implies no specific commitments. I'm taking issue with the implied premise of this piece, namely, that if Israeli citizens are mad at BO, we should care.
That argument never seems to get traction when people suggest we should pay attention to public opinion in France when considering our foreign policies, and we don't bribe them to $3 billion a year.
at July 22, 2009 3:53 AM
My main response to Mike is stuck in the spam folder, due to its links.
Posted by: glasnost at July 22, 2009 3:53 AM
My main response to Mike is stuck in the spam folder, due to its links.
Posted by: glasnost at July 22, 2009 3:54 AM
You're pretty well-informed, A-Squared.
So tell me with a straight face that you think that BO pushing Israel on a settlement freeze, or the unpopularity of his policies there, will lead to.. what? Israel refusing to sell us their tech? Israel no longer taking our money? Israel starting to buy things from bad people? These fall on a spectrum between "I doubt it" and "who the heck cares?". Sometimes both.
Israel has no alternative patron. The real alliance - that we will bail them out of genuine trouble - is unlikely to change. Everything else is window dressing. There are no real advantages for us of any significance except doing the right thing. They're not exactly going to turn us down, except as a bluff, a power play, which they know how to work.
Posted by: glasnost at July 22, 2009 4:03 AM
glasnost',
"We're not paying that to other legit US allies."
Tell me, which ally you are not paying to and I'll show you where you are wrong.
Posted by: leo at July 22, 2009 4:29 AM
"So tell me with a straight face that you think that BO pushing Israel on a settlement freeze, or the unpopularity of his policies there, will lead to.. what?"
Nothing much. Israelis will stall for a year or so until mid-term election, then pressure will subside. And if not, there is always another POTUS. Don't pay attention to loud mouths here and there.
Posted by: leo at July 22, 2009 4:41 AM
Glosnost, that's funny. Add up what we shell out to Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. In fact try and up what we give to all 57 Muslim countries. As someone has already mentioned, most of the "aid" to Israel is for weapons that is then shelled back to US manufacturers.
With Mubarak going into surgery in Paris, I can only hope that works out well or else things might change.....
Posted by: maxtrue at July 22, 2009 10:42 AM
Glasnost,
Netanyahu's comment was about buying and renting, not building.
That it's difficult for Arabs to get building permits is well-known. Banning Jews from getting building permits isn't the right way to address that particular problem.
This is the sort of thing that's pissing Israelis off.
I would take seriously any French complaints about the US if the American president thought his job description included urban planning in Paris. We're not talking about settlements here, we're talking about Jerusalem. Jordan's internationally unrecognized military occupation and ethnic-cleansing of East Jerusalem that ended before I was born doesn't mean Jews shouldn't build houses there now.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at July 22, 2009 10:53 AM
I still need to read this presentation about the West Bank economy:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Deputy_Foreign_Minister/Speeches/Dep-FM-Ayalon-on-measures-to-ease-restrictions-on-the-Palestinian-population-08-Jul-2009.htm
Glastnost, do not exaggerate Israel's reliance on America. Israel wouldn't be hurt nearly as much as you think if relations with the US went south (aside from the $3 billion a year in lost foreign aid . . . but even that is a small percentage of Israeli GDP.)
Remember that 40% of all Israeli defense exports go to India; and that Israel and India are collaborating on a missile defense shield and many other defense R&D projects.
The US imposes significant restrictions on Israeli imports of top US hardware. In some ways, it is easier for India--to take one example--to buy top of the line US equipment than Israel. For this reason, Israel is lobbying India hard to do joint weapons development with Israel rather than work too closely with the US. Israel makes the case that it is a much more loyal friend than the US . . . which is pretty hard to argue with. Israel, in fact, is a pretty good friend to have as long as you aren't Palestinian.
I would also note that Israel's civilian economy is becoming increasingly interdependent with China and India. China and India combined will likely be a larger trading, investment and business collaboration partner with Israel than the US.
Israel also has close friendships with Russia, Turkey, Germany and Japan. Israel regularly upgrades and refits top of the line Russian weapons platforms.
On the question of US allies other than Israel:
-don't sell South Korea short. South Korea pays the US a lot of money to keep US troops in their country. South Korea, as the 11th largest economy in the world, is a more useful ally than Israel. South Korea has given huge amounts of aid to Iraq and Afghanistan. South Korea might become Iraq's largest weapons supplier.
-Japan is America's most important ally. They are far more pro American than the Brits.
-Australia is a far closer ally than Israel
-UK
-Germany (4,500 troops in Afghanistan+ advisors for 205th ANA corps + foreign aid is no joke)
-Canada (the Canadians have volunteered for the most dangerous missions in Afghanistan)
- France under President Sarkozy (Sarkozy is a genuine friend of the US.)
I would note that Hamas members have suggested that they might be willing for form an alliance with the US to fight AQ linked networks. The Palestinians are not America's enemies.
Posted by: anand at July 22, 2009 2:43 PM
I still need to read this presentation about the West Bank economy:
http
://
www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Deputy_Foreign_Minister/Speeches/Dep-FM-Ayalon-on-measures-to-ease-restrictions-on-the-Palestinian-population-08-Jul-2009.htm
Glastnost, do not exaggerate Israel's reliance on America. Israel wouldn't be hurt nearly as much as you think if relations with the US went south (aside from the $3 billion a year in lost foreign aid . . . but even that is a small percentage of Israeli GDP.)
Remember that 40% of all Israeli defense exports go to India; and that Israel and India are collaborating on a missile defense shield and many other defense R&D projects.
The US imposes significant restrictions on Israeli imports of top US hardware. In some ways, it is easier for India--to take one example--to buy top of the line US equipment than Israel. For this reason, Israel is lobbying India hard to do joint weapons development with Israel rather than work too closely with the US. Israel makes the case that it is a much more loyal friend than the US . . . which is pretty hard to argue with. Israel, in fact, is a pretty good friend to have as long as you aren't Palestinian.
I would also note that Israel's civilian economy is becoming increasingly interdependent with China and India. China and India combined will likely be a larger trading, investment and business collaboration partner with Israel than the US.
Israel also has close friendships with Russia, Turkey, Germany and Japan. Israel regularly upgrades and refits top of the line Russian weapons platforms.
On the question of US allies other than Israel:
-don't sell South Korea short. South Korea pays the US a lot of money to keep US troops in their country. South Korea, as the 11th largest economy in the world, is a more useful ally than Israel. South Korea has given huge amounts of aid to Iraq and Afghanistan. South Korea might become Iraq's largest weapons supplier.
-Japan is America's most important ally. They are far more pro American than the Brits.
-Australia is a far closer ally than Israel
-UK
-Germany (4,500 troops in Afghanistan+ advisors for 205th ANA corps + foreign aid is no joke)
-Canada (the Canadians have volunteered for the most dangerous missions in Afghanistan)
- France under President Sarkozy (Sarkozy is a genuine friend of the US.)
I would note that Hamas members have suggested that they might be willing for form an alliance with the US to fight AQ linked networks. The Palestinians are not America's enemies.
Posted by: anand at July 22, 2009 2:43 PM
On the US list of allies, I forgot to mention Singapore. They are as pro American as they get, allow us basing rights and donate foreign aid to causes we ask them to contribute towards.
Israel cannot openly support America's causes in many cases (Somalia, Sudan, Darfur, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan), whereas other countries can.
Posted by: anand at July 22, 2009 2:47 PM
"I would note that Hamas members have suggested that they might be willing for form an alliance with the US to fight AQ linked networks. The Palestinians are not America's enemies."
Once again anand compulsively pimps savages dedicated to annihilating the Jews.
Posted by: Gary Rosen at July 23, 2009 3:24 AM
Anand;
If the Palestinians are not enemies of the US, why all the public celebrations on 9-11?
Posted by: Boojum at July 23, 2009 7:19 AM
