Love of the Land: The Jews of Silence

The Jews of Silence

Richard Baehr
American Thinker
18 April '10

The New York Times, in a front page article, described how President Obama appears to be reconsidering, if not turning away from, the historic strategic alliance between the U.S. and Israel. In remarks made at the end of the multinational nuclear security talks, Obama reinforced this message, saying the following:

It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower[.] ... And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

It is almost impossible to exaggerate the significance of these two lines as to the president's thinking. It is also impossible to read these and not realize that this president is the greatest threat to the strategic alliance of the U.S. and Israel since the founding of the modern Jewish state in 1948. The first sentence is in some ways the more incredible. No prior American president has been resentful or unhappy about leading the world's greatest superpower. This can mean only one of two things:

(Read full article)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: The Jews of Silence

Love of the Land: Allies Be Wary

Allies Be Wary

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
17 March '10

Robert Kagan says Israel shouldn’t take it personally:

Israelis shouldn’t feel that they have been singled out. In Britain, people are talking about the end of the “special relationship” with America and worrying that Obama has no great regard for the British, despite their ongoing sacrifices in Afghanistan. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has openly criticized Obama for months (and is finally being rewarded with a private dinner, presumably to mend fences). In Eastern and Central Europe, there has been fear since the administration canceled long-planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that the United States may no longer be a reliable guarantor of security.

And that’s just the beginning of the scorned-ally list. As Kagan notes, the Obami are infatuated with engaging foes — Iran, China, Russia, and a hodge-podge of despotic regimes. He explains:

The president has shown seemingly limitless patience with the Russians as they stall an arms-control deal that could have been done in December. He accepted a year of Iranian insults and refusal to negotiate before hesitantly moving toward sanctions. The administration continues to woo Syria and Burma without much sign of reciprocation in Damascus or Rangoon. Yet Obama angrily orders a near-rupture of relations with Israel for a minor infraction like the recent settlement dispute — and after the Israeli prime minister publicly apologized.

This may be the one great innovation of Obama foreign policy. While displaying more continuity than discontinuity in his policies toward Afghanistan, Iraq and the war against terrorism, and garnering as a result considerable bipartisan support for those policies, Obama appears to be departing from a 60-year-old American grand strategy when it comes to allies.

It is therefore not purely a matter of Middle East policy when Obama kicks Israel in the shins.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Allies Be Wary

Love of the Land: Obama and Israel: Not Smart

Obama and Israel: Not Smart

John Podhoretz
commentarymagazine.com
15 March '10

In both politics and diplomacy, actors must think at least one move ahead. They need to be reasonably sure that when they say or do A, then the other party will say or do B. And they should want the other party to say or do B, otherwise it makes no sense to say A in the first place. The purpose of action isn't just to act, in other words, but to make sure that the reaction you get advances your purposes and your interests. Which is why the administration's behavior in deepening and perpetuating its latest confrontation with Israel is actually rather bewildering. Let's start out by acknowledging that what happened during Vice President Biden's trip last week — the announcement of new housing starts in East Jerusalem — was an affront to the United States. I believe Israel has every right to do what it is doing, but the view of the visiting representative of the administration is that what it is doing is wrong and injurious to future prospects for peace, and this conflict of visions is not going to be resolved. Biden was embarrassed, his visit overshadowed, and expressions of diplomatic dismay appropriate as a result. The Israeli prime minister, who did not know about the announcement, apologized to the visitor and was embarrassed as well by the way in which the dysfunctional Israeli political system was exposed to international view.

All of that happened in a day — on Tuesday. It happened, it was reported on, the administration made its displeasure known, with Biden himself condemning the announcement. Prime Minister Netanyahu's office made clear he had been blindsided by the announcement, which was made by the head of a party inside his coalition government. On Wednesday, privately and publicly, he and other Israelis made their own shame known, and it was clear that there were going to have to be fences mended. Fence-mending is what diplomacy is usually all about, especially by an administration that seems to think its predecessor didn't spend enough time at it.

And then matters escalated. And they escalated because the United States escalated them. Hillary Clinton called up Bibi Netanyahu on Friday and, if one reads between the lines in the reporting on their conversation, basically screamed at him for 45 minutes. Then her spokesman went out and told the world she had done so, and used startlingly violent language — calling the announcement a "deeply negative signal."

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Obama and Israel: Not Smart

Love of the Land: Clinton warns Israel: If you make concessions that rely on U.S. support it may not be there if you err?

Clinton warns Israel: If you make concessions that rely on U.S. support it may not be there if you err?

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
14 March '10

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

"In her call, Clinton appeared to link U.S. military support for Israel to the construction in East Jerusalem"

Bottom line: After the miserable failure of President Obama's appeasement policy towards Iran - and the passage of his 2009 "deadline" for Iran we now have a reminder to Israel that the U.S. could threaten Israel in the future if it finds itself in a policy dispute.

So the warning: the last thing Israel can afford to do is take "risks for peace" that rely on American support since there is always the possibility that a future policy dispute will lead to that support being subject to question.?]


Clinton rebukes Israel over East Jerusalem plans, cites damage to bilateral ties

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 13, 2010; A01
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202615.html

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton rebuked Israeli Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday about the state of the U.S.-Israeli
relationship, demanding that Israel take immediate steps to show it is
interested in renewing efforts to achieve a Middle East peace agreement.
.....

Some analysts applauded the administration's tough stance, saying it may jar the right-leaning Israeli government into making gestures to the Palestinians. But others said Clinton's call risked emboldening Arab and Palestinian officials to make new demands before talks start, if only so as not to seem softer than the Americans.

In her call, Clinton appeared to link U.S. military support for Israel to the construction in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians view as the site for their future capital. "The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States' strong commitment to Israel's security," Crowley said. "She made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate, not just through words but through specific actions, that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Clinton warns Israel: If you make concessions that rely on U.S. support it may not be there if you err?