Obama's diplomatic war against Israel

Maybe this should be called Barry's war? What Obama and his administration are doing to the once near airtight U.S-Israel relationship should be enough to snap any JINO out of the Kool-Aid induced stupor they have been in since THE ONE tossed his asshat hat into the ring for the presidency. Decades of a close relationship are shredding into the winds of hatred for the Jewish state. While such stupidity and barbaric treatment of an ally hated by the Arabs might garner Obama a temporary rise in popularity in the Islamic world, it will eventually backfire on Obama and the United States. Does Obama continue to push Israel, which will most likely tell Obama to stick it or will Obama come to his senses before he realizes what he may lose? I seriously doubt Obama will stop now. He is arrogant, power mad, an Islamist and the first Muslim president of the United States. Why would he stop now?

---

Has the Obama Administration, against U.S. interests, declared diplomatic war on Israel?
Barry Rubin

RubinReports,  Up to now my view has been that the U.S. government didn’t want a crisis but merely sought to get indirect negotiations going between Israel and Palestinians in order to look good.

Even assuming this limited goal, the technique was to keep getting concessions from Israel without asking the PA to do or give anything has been foolish, but at least it was a generally rational strategy.

But now it has become reasonable to ask whether the Obama White House is running amuck on Israel, whether it is pushing friction so far out of proportion that it is starting to seem a vendetta based on hostility and ideology. And if that's true, there is little Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or any Israeli leader can do to fix the problem.

A partial explanation of such behavior can be called, to borrow a phrase from the health law debate, a "single-payer option" as its Middle East strategy. That is, the administration seems to envision Israel paying for everything: supposedly to get the Palestinian Authority (PA) to talks, do away with any Islamist desire to carry out terrorism or revolution, keep Iraq quiet, make Afghanistan stable, and solve just about any other global problem.

What makes this U.S. tactic even more absurd is doing so at the very moment when it is coddling Syria and losing the battle for anything but the most minimal sanctions on Iran.

During his visit to Washington, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to defuse the tension. His partners in government, we should never forget, are Defense Minister Ehud Barak, leader of the Labour Party, and President Shimon Peres, who has done more to promote Middle East peace than any other living Israeli leader.

But according to reliable sources, Obama went out of his way to be personally hostile, treating Netanyahu like some colonial minion who could be ordered around.

It is not entirely clear what demands the White House has made on Israel. Those most often mentioned are the release of more Palestinian prisoners, the permanent end of construction in the West Bank, and the permanent end to construction in parts of Jerusalem over the pre-1967 border.

Palestinian prisoners: It is ironic, given U.S. statements that Israel must "prove" its commitment to peace, that there have been so many prisoner releases in the past. Thus, Washington is not giving Israel credit for these. Moreover, many of those arrested have committed terrorism against Israeli civilians in the past and may well do so in future. Finally, releasing prisoners will not bring any gratitude from the PA or increased willingness to negotiate. If such a release is forced, the PA will merely assume that it doesn't matter if Palestinians attrack or kill Israelis because Washington will secure the release of those captured in future without the PA having to do anything.

West Bank and Jerusalem Construction: Only five months ago, the U.S. government agreed to a temporary halt to construction and Israel's government agreed. If this did not prove Israel's commitment to peace--and the White House broke the deal--why should Israel assume that it will get any credit for this step either? What is its incentive for such a big concession? Such construction should give the PA an incentive to make a deal faster. But, again, if this goal is achieved by U.S. pressure, why shouldn't the PA presume that all settlements will be removed in future by a similar mechanism without its having to make full peace and any concessions?

I won't take space here to restate all the arguments regarding Israel's claims to areas of Jerusalem under Jordanian rule before 1967. Note that President Clinton, in the Camp David and Clinton plan proposals in 2000, supported Israeli rule over much--though definitely not all--of east Jerusalem.
Why should the administration believe that it can press Israel to make big concessions, a: with no PA concessions; b. with its U.S. ally showing itself so unreliable that it is unlikely to credit Israel with concessions it does make or to keep agreements based on Israeli concessions; and c. at a time when the U.S. government is not workin very hard to stop Iran's nuclear weapons campaign? Continue reading

Clarity in viewing the crisis between the U.S. and Israel

There has been quite a bit written about the new spate between the United States and Israel. Having read a ton of articles, spending a lot of time on this argument, I read this assessment by Barry Rubin of RubinReports. While I do not always agree with Mr. Rubin, I have found him to be very accurate, knowledgeable and he knows the history of the region.

---

Explaining the U.S.-Israel Crisis
Barry Rubin

It is important to understand that the current controversy over construction in east Jerusalem is neither a public relations’ problem nor a bilateral policy dispute. It arises because of things having nothing directly to do with this specific point.

What are the real issues involved:

1. The U.S. and most European governments are determined not to criticize the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) sabotage of the peace process. The facts are clear: The PA rejects negotiations for fourteen months. No reaction. The PA makes President Barack Obama look foolish by destroying his September 2009 initiative saying there would be talks within two months. The PA broke its promise to Obama not to sponsor the Goldstone report. In the end, the PA still won’t talk directly. Yet during fourteen months in office the Obama administration has not criticized the PA once. The point is clear: The U.S. government will never criticize the PA no matter what it does. (We’ll talk about why this is so in a moment.)

2. Same thing regarding Syria. Dictator Bashar al-Assad supports terrorists who kill the United States in Iraq; kills Lebanese politicians; openly laughs at U.S. policy; and invites Iran’s president immediately after a major U.S. concession. Yet the Obama Administration makes no criticism and in fact offers more concessions.

3. The United States will criticize Iran but will not take a tough and vigorous stand against it. Now it is mid-March and no higher sanctions. Indeed, the administration’s sanctions’ campaign is falling apart.

4. On whom can the Administration’s failures be blamed? Answer: Israel. Since it is a friend of the United States and to some degree dependent on it, no matter what the Obama Administration does to Israel that country has no wish or way to retaliate. It is safe to beat up on Israel.

5. By doing so, the Administration gets Europeans to go along easily and can say to Arabs and Muslims: See we are tough on Israel so you should be nice to us.

6. What does the U.S. government want? A lot of things. An easier withdrawal from Iraq; popularity; quiet; nobody attacking it verbally or materially (at least not so its constituents will hear the attacks); an ability to claim success or at least claim it would have been successful on the peace process if not for Israel; supposedly, Arab support for its doing something on Iran; hopefully, less terrorism; and so on.

7. There is also an ideological aspect given the Administration’s general worldview, which need not be repeated here at length. But large elements in the government apparently have so accepted the manifestly untrue idea that everything in the region is linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict that high-level officials have reportedly remarked that the construction of apartments in east Jerusalem jeopardize the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan or that Arab states won't cooperate with the United States because of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

The argument that U.S.-Arab relations rests on U.S.-Israel relations has been repeated for a half-century and repeatedly proven wrong. American attempts to resolve the conflict have rarely received help from the Arab world, and often been bitterly opposed. At the same time, Arab states have repetedly functioned on the basis of their own interests to seek U.S. help because they recognized American power: to convoy tankers and deter Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to protect them from Iran and revolutionary Islamists today, and in dozens of other cases. They may say that everything depends on Israel but that is propaganda.

By the same token, if the Arab world--that is the relative moderates--isn't being helpful to the United States now, this is due to the fact that such action is often against the interests of states themselves and precisely because they do not view America as a strong and reliable power today. That latter problem is the result of Administration policies.

No matter what the Administration does to Israel, these things won't change. In short, the Administration is falling for the oldest trick, the most venerable con-game, in the Middle East book: The lure of believing that if it moves away from Israel, pressures Israel, and solves the conflict (which isn't going to happen either), all the Arab governments will love America and do what it wants them to do.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that nowadays the United States is focusing on Iran and Afghanistan, places where Israel-Palestinian issues clearly have zero effect on events. Sunni and Shia Iraqis aren't in conflict because of Israel; Sunni insurgents aren't attacking American troops because of Israel. Al-Qaida and the Taliban aren't fighting to seize power in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of Israel. And al-Qaida isn't seeking to overturn all Arab regimes, create an Islamist government, and destroy any Western role in the Middle East because of Israel.

And even if the Israel issue may be one factor affecting the attitudes of Arabs toward revolutionary Islamism it is only a single factor among many. The people prone to supporting revolutionary Islamism won't interpret an American conflict with Israel as showing the goodness of Obama but as proving the weakness of Obama and the coming triumph of Iran in the region.
Continue reading

So Israel emabrrassed Biden and Obama? So what! Obama has done nothing for Israel.

The timing could not have been better for this announcement about new construction in East Jerusalem. Who really cares if the Islamist Obama and his Israel hating administration are upset over this? The Palestinians? They can leave anytime they want to. As far as I am concerned they can swim the Suez Canal over to Egypt, take a boat to Jordan or Lebanon. But no other Arab country will accept them. Not too hard to figure out why. Hopefully, this will torpedo any hopes of resuming talks with the Palestinians as they never give up anything or agree to any concessions.

---

Netanyahu to Biden: We didn't seek to embarrass you over East Jerusalem construction
From Haaretz.com

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to alleviate new tensions with the United States on Tuesday, after an announcement that Israel will build 1,600 new homes in an ultra-Orthodox East Jerusalem neighborhood drew strong condemnation from the White House, and visiting U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

The prime minister reportedly promised Biden "No one was seeking to embarrass you or undermine your visit - on the contrary, you are a true friend to Israel."

Biden arrived in Israel on Monday in an attempt to kick-start long-stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, which had been expected to resume in the coming days, but looked in danger Tuesday after a furious response from the Palestinians to the construction plan.
Advertisement

Netanyahu told Biden during their meeting in Jerusalem earlier in the day that he had had no prior knowledge of the decision to authorize the additional construction, and added that the program had been drafted three years ago and only received initial authorization that day. It could take several months, Netanyahu assured him, before the program is granted final approval.

Netanyahu told his guest that the regional councils are not under the political leadership's direct authority, and that his administration tries not to interfere with their work.

A high-ranking official in Jerusalem, however, said Netanyahu has "no problem" with construction in Jerusalem and has no intention of apologizing for building there. The official acknowledged, however, that the announcement's timing was harmful to Israel's diplomatic interests.

"We didn't want to humiliate Biden or sow division while he is in Israel," the official said.

Israel's Interior Ministry announced that approval had been granted to build new housing units in Ramat Shlomo, an ultra-Orthodox community of 20,000 north of downtown Jerusalem, which borders the Palestinian village of Shuafat.

The program, authorized by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee, is one of the largest construction projects Israel has launched in Jerusalem in recent years. The development would spread over an area of 580 dunams (approximately 145 acres) and include a new road leading to the neighborhood, public facilities and a park. The ministry said the plan is intended to ease the ultra-Orthodox community's housing shortage, and 30 percent of the units will be relatively small and inexpensive, aimed at young couples.

Interior Ministry officials rejected claims that the plan's authorization was intended to scuttle efforts to renew proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, or to otherwise compromise Biden's visit.

Jerusalem city council member Meir Margalit (Meretz) said of the plan, "The timing is not coincidental - it is a response from Eli Yishai to Netanyahu's declaration of renewed talks with the Palestinian Authority." Yishai, the interior minister and deputy prime minister, is chair of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party.

"The fact that Yishai can't wait a few more days until Biden leaves the country proves his goal was to give the American administration a slap in the face," Margalit said.

Ramallah sees provocation

The Palestinian Authority issued a strong rebuke of the Israeli announcement, with Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, warning the move would derail negotiations before they had even begun.

"It is apparent that the Israeli government does not want negotiations, nor does it want peace," Abu Rudeineh said, according to the Ma'an news agency. "The American administration must respond to this provocation with effective measures."

Abbas contacted Arab League chief Amr Moussa by phone and urged him to speak with the heads of Arab states over forming a concerted response to the building program.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee, told Haaretz that Israel's declaration shows "the Israeli government does not want peace, it does not want a solution ? There is no clearer message; there is a no more provocative measure."

Biden will meet with Abbas in Ramallah on Wednesday, and U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell is expected to arrive in the region next week to conduct the second round of proximity talks between Jerusalem and Ramallah.

The U.S. administration hopes it can return to direct discussions between junior-level Israeli and Palestinian officials within a few weeks.

The talks are expected to deal with all of the so-called core issues: borders, water refugees, security arrangements, settlements and the status of Jerusalem. Although the Arab League had set aside four months to allow the talks to progress, Mitchell said his administration is not operating according to a certain fixed date, and that negotiations will proceed as long as necessary.

Still, Mitchell said, he hopes Israel will take steps to build goodwill towards the Palestinians in an effort to push to direct talks. Possible gestures include the release of prisoners, removing certain West Bank checkpoints, easing the blockade of the Gaza Strip, reducing Israel's military presence in Palestinian cities and transferring certain areas of the West Bank to Palestinian security control.

"I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units," Biden said in a written statement. "The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now." Continue reading

Haaretz