blbg: Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’

[JMS]

I thought this article was very interesting. It's a rare occasion where high ranking American's are both voicing frustration with Israel, and hinting about a future when the US is no longer a rubber stamp on "diplomatic issues". Even that Israel's current actions are endangering it's continued existence as an jewish state.

Now I think you take all this with a grain of salt. I think ultimately this is the way governments talk to each other when they aren't successful in doing so in private. Publicly declaring a position, laying out analysis for the other side to consider and debate.

As far as recent US/Israeli relations... this article is the equivalence of a rubber hose, a vocal and public declaration of frustration caused by Israel that may result in a "significant shift in policy".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...derstand-.html

Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’



Shortly after the United Nations General Assembly voted in late November to upgrade the status of the Palestinians, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that it would advance plans to establish a settlement in an area of the West Bank known as E-1, and that it would build 3,000 additional housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.
A large settlement in E-1, an empty zone between Jerusalem and the Jewish settlement city of Maaleh Adumim, would make the goal of politically moderate Palestinians -- the creation of a geographically contiguous state -- much harder to achieve.

The world reacted to the E-1 announcement in the usual manner: It condemned the plans as a provocation and an injustice. President Barack Obama’s administration, too, criticized it. “We believe these actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve a two-state solution,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council.
‘Best Interests’

But what didn’t happen in the White House after the announcement is actually more interesting than what did.
When informed about the Israeli decision, Obama, who has a famously contentious relationship with the prime minister, didn’t even bother getting angry. He told several people that this sort of behavior on Netanyahu’s part is what he has come to expect, and he(Obama) suggested that he has become inured to what he sees as self-defeating policies of his Israeli counterpart.
In the weeks after the UN vote, Obama said privately and repeatedly, “Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.” With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation.
And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah -- one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend -- it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.
The dysfunctional relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is poised to enter a new phase. Next week, Israeli voters will probably return Netanyahu to power, this time at the head of a coalition even more intractably right-wing than the one he currently leads.
Obama has always had a complicated relationship with the prime minister. On matters of genuine security, Obama has been a reliable ally, encouraging close military cooperation, helping maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge over its regional rivals and, most important, promising that he won’t allow Iran to cross the nuclear-weapons threshold.
Yet even this support didn’t keep Netanyahu from pulling for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in last year’s presidential campaign.
On matters related to the Palestinians, the president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Obama’s nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, is said to be eager to re-energize the Middle East peace process, but Obama -- who already has a Nobel Peace Prize -- is thought to be considerably more wary. He views the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as weak, but he has become convinced that Netanyahu is so captive to the settler lobby, and so uninterested in making anything more than the slightest conciliatory gesture toward Palestinian moderates, that an investment of presidential interest in the peace process wouldn’t be a wise use of his time.
Obama, since his time in the Senate, has been consistent in his analysis of Israel’s underlying challenge: If it doesn’t disentangle itself from the lives of West Bank Palestinians, the world will one day decide it is behaving as an apartheid state.
The Consequences

For Israel, the short-term consequences of Obama’s frustration are limited. The U.S. won’t cut off its aid to Israel, and Obama’s effort to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions will continue whether or not he’s fed up with Netanyahu.
But it is in terms of American diplomatic protection -- among the Europeans and especially at the UN -- that Israel may one day soon notice a significant shift. During November’s vote on Palestine’s status, the U.S. supported Israel and asked its allies to do the same. In the end, they were joined by a total of seven other countries, including the Pacific powerhouses Palau and Micronesia.
When such an issue arises again, Israel may find itself even lonelier. It wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. failed to whip votes the next time, or if the U.S. actually abstained. I wouldn’t be particularly surprised, either, if Obama eventually offered a public vision of what a state of Palestine should look like, and affirmed that it should have its capital in East Jerusalem.
Obama isn’t making unreasonable demands. Israeli concerns about the turmoil in Syria and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood are legitimate in the American view, and Obama knows that broad territorial compromise by Israel in such an unstable environment is unlikely.
But what Obama wants is recognition by Netanyahu that Israel’s settlement policies are foreclosing on the possibility of a two-state solution, and he wants Netanyahu to acknowledge that a two-state solution represents the best chance of preserving the country as a Jewish-majority democracy. Obama wants, in other words, for Netanyahu to act in Israel’s best interests.
So far, though, there has been no sign that the Israeli government is gaining a better understanding of the world in which it lives.

[Buford]

I saw this as an American 1st and a Jew 2nd.

Israel needs to get past Netanyahu because he's failing his country and people again. Not because he went in big on Romney. But because Obama in this instance is right.

But end of the day, we can look at our own American Congress and say the same thing. No? "Best Interests" is a tricky thing.

Look, I don't think a 2nd state solution will work. I think if you give the Palestinians their own full-on country, it wouldn't survive very long. Sometimes you've got to let people fail on their own.

[Larry]

Agree with the analysis.

Predict that a LOT more people will react to the headline, than to the analysis.

---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 12:05 PM ----------

Look, I don't think a 2nd state solution will work. I think if you give the Palestinians their own full-on country, it wouldn't survive very long.

I'm not certain that you're wrong, but would you care to elaborate on that? Like, what do you see this hypothetical state falling to.

(Me, I could see it happening. I think that if the Palestenians were to just be given their own country, then what you'd wind up with would be an incredibly weak Palestenian government, in a country where powerhouses like Iran have really powerful underground armies. I think that the terrorists would proliferate and escalate, and the nominal Palestenian government wouldn't have the power to stop them. (If Israel can't stop Iran from arming terrorists in Palestine, how can we possibly expect the Palestenian government to do so?))

[Buford]

I'm not certain that you're wrong, but would you care to elaborate on that? Like, what do you see this hypothetical state falling to.

I don't think there are enough people there that are strong enough to keep a real gov't together. They can't form and then be only focused on then defeating Israel. If they form and then attack, why shouldn't Israel crush them and take it all? Because the other neighbors would get involved? Then we'd get involved? I think these other anti-Israel countries are also anti-Palestinian, they just don't say it.

Gov't forms, too man radicals get involved, everything falls off the tracks. Rinse, Repeat.

I've said this before. If every Jewish and Western Influence left the middle east, do you think they would have a peaceful region of the world? I don't. I think they would turn on each other because that's the mentality of the current generation over there.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Reaction will not be positive as there is a very large portion of our population that believes the US must defend Israel regardless of what she does. There are those who do so politically, and there an even larger segment that does so for theological reasons.

Neither will hear this well.

[mboyd784]

I don't think there are enough people there that are strong enough to keep a real gov't together. They can't form and then be only focused on then defeating Israel. If they form and then attack, why shouldn't Israel crush them and take it all? Because the other neighbors would get involved? Then we'd get involved? I think these other anti-Israel countries are also anti-Palestinian, they just don't say it.

Gov't forms, too man radicals get involved, everything falls off the tracks. Rinse, Repeat.

I've said this before. If every Jewish and Western Influence left the middle east, do you think they would have a peaceful region of the world? I don't. I think they would turn on each other because that's the mentality of the current generation over there.

Perhaps a generation without overt Western/Israeli influence would yield a better adjusted, more peaceful culture? I don't think it's realistic at this point to try and solve the problem next week in one fell swoop. Shared sacrifice and tiny baby steps toward diplomacy should result in a move towards a peaceful mindset for the generation being born today, both in Palestine and Israel. Let's hope, anyway.

[Predicto]

If they form and then attack, why shouldn't Israel crush them and take it all? Because the other neighbors would get involved? Then we'd get involved? I think these other anti-Israel countries are also anti-Palestinian, they just don't say it.

I think that is a huge (and foolish) assumption. The Palestinians do not want their own state just so they can turn around and throw it all away on a hopeless attack against a vastly superior opponent. That is a Glenn Beck/Avigdor Lieberman level of analysis. I am really surprised to see you even suggest it.

The Palestinians want their own state so that they can have their own state.

I'm not a pie in the sky idealist. It is possible - highly likely even - that such a new state will have problems controlling its radical element, and that there will still be sporadic attacks on Israel for decades to come. But that is already the case today, even more so because the Palestinian authority lacks the legitimacy of actually being a real government of a real state.

[Buford]

I think that is a huge (and foolish) assumption. The Palestinians do not want their own state just so they can turn around and throw it all away on a hopeless attack against a vastly superior opponent. That is a Glenn Beck/Avigdor Lieberman level of analysis. I am really surprised to see you even suggest it.

The Palestinians want their own state so that they can have their own state.

I'm not a pie in the sky idealist. It is possible - highly likely even - that such a new state will have problems controlling its radical element, and that there will still be sporadic attacks on Israel for decades to come. But that is already the case today, even more so because the Palestinian authority lacks the legitimacy of actually being a real government of a real state.

I don't buy that the folks who want to be involved in a new Gov't there will be a majority of just wanting their own state. If they form and the attacks continue, what is the proper response?

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Can someone explain to me, a 22 year old with solid understanding of history but still far too young to "have been there", America's obsession with the nation of Israel?

As it was explained to me in High School, Israel was British land occupied predominantly by Muslims that was "given" to the Jews as an "apology" or a "sorry you just got gassed" token following WWII. I don't mean to sound crude, that's literally how it was explained to me in High School. As I was taught, from there things naturally blew the **** up. The local muslims were livid at suddenly finding themselves living in a Jewish state and war broke out. The fledgeling nation of Israel prevailed and established itself primarily through the monetary and equiment contributions from Western Nations, who, after all, had just worked very hard to establish the new nation.

As a naive 22 year old kid, can someone set this right for me? Why did we ever think this was a good idea? And why, to this day, do we continue to support a nation that has shaky origins at best? Is it purely because we hitched our wagon to it and refuse to be wrong? Were the cold war implications as the Soviets were moving east? Why should I, a young American who only lived a single year of his life under the cloud of the cold war, consider Israel an "ally" and Palestine an "enemy"?

[gbear]

Then the response is the same as when any other nation state attacks another, a war. There are some potential advantages though. With the time spent organizing a new government, things will be built. Right now, what is there worth a tank shell much less a missile? I know that is some what of an exaggeration, but is there much left Israel can say, "behave or we will destroy X"

Beyond that, there is the Roman philosiphy of conquered lands. They frequently put the rebells back in charge with the understanding that if attacked they would sack the city again. Why do this? Because when forced to lead, it's harder to find time and energy to attack and still have resources enough to defend all you just got or built.

Finally, I think there is a realization of hte power of demographics. How long till Jews are a minority in Israel?

[Predicto]

I don't buy that the folks who want to be involved in a new Gov't there will be a majority of just wanting their own state. If they form and the attacks continue, what is the proper response?

The same as it is between any two states where one can't control militants or terrorists who use it as the base for attacks against the other. A spectrum of options between overt cooperation between law enforcement authorities on both sides up to invasion by one side against the other. That is happening all over the world right now - and is already happening in the current situation in Israel/Palestine.

But that is NOT what you said. What you said was that a New Palestinian State is going to form up and turn around and declare war on Israel. That is a completely different thing, and (in my opinion) a really silly thing to assume, and that makes it a really weak argument against letting the Palestinians have their own state.

[talk show host]

Why do american politicians care so much about Isreal anyways? I never understood that.

[martytheman]

I've said this before. If every Jewish and Western Influence left the middle east, do you think they would have a peaceful region of the world? I don't. I think they would turn on each other because that's the mentality of the current generation over there.

Current generation? Those ****ers have been killing each other for 2000 years.. I don't think it will ever stop, no matter what influence is/isn't there

[JMS]

Look, I don't think a 2nd state solution will work. I think if you give the Palestinians their own full-on country, it wouldn't survive very long.

It really depends upon how it's done. If the Palestinians are given something to loose ( capital in east Jerusalem, contiguous land, enough support from the west to make a go of it, and no punitive invasions by Israel) then it could work. The problem is the folks proposing this in Israel ( Kadima ) aren't proposing a separate state because they want peace with the Palestinians. They are proposing it because they want somewhere to warehouse the Palestinians as a balm against the inevitable apartheid argument. The argument which occurs when the majority of the people in Israel and the occupied territories, who have endured systemic discrimination, who have lived in greater Israel and the occupied territories for the last 40-50 years, simple ask for the vote. Based upon that I don't think a second state will work either. I think a separate state under these circumstances falls along the lines of segregation, separate but equal, and apartheid. I think it's a formula for another 70 years of antagonism.

I think the dawn is about to set, if it hasn't already on a two state solution to this problem.

[Buford]

The same as it is between any two states where one can't control militants or terrorists who use it as the base for attacks against the other. A spectrum of options between overt cooperation between law enforcement authorities on both sides up to invasion by one side against the other. That is happening all over the world right now - and is already happening in the current situation in Israel/Palestine.

But that is NOT what you said. What you said was that a New Palestinian State is going to form up and turn around and declare war on Israel. That is a completely different thing, and (in my opinion) a really silly thing to assume, and that makes it a really weak argument against letting the Palestinians have their own state.

I said "if", not a definite. Right? I said if they form and attack. I said they can't form and be only focused on defeating Israel because that wouldn't work IMO.