[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Israel’s Growing Isolation—and America’s Decreasing Regional Power The Israeli press is still trying to figure out what to make of Robert Gatess parting shot at Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Jeffrey Goldbergs column earlier this the week, Gates thinks that Netanyahu is ungrateful. Gates is upset because, while the White House has provided the Israelis with access to top-quality weapons, assistance developing missile-defense systems, high-level intelligence sharing, the administration hasnt gotten what it really wants in exchangemovement on the peace process, according to Goldberg. Of course, the Israelis havent gotten what they really want eitheraction on Iranand the Pentagons munificence is partly intended to deter the Israelis from taking matters into their own hands. Yedioth Ahronoth adds some more details to the story behind the rift, suggesting that Gatess animosity was first stoked last summer when U.S. officials were briefing Netanyahu on the $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Apparently, Netanyahu came to the meeting unprepared and started lecturing Gates and others on the dangers facing the Jewish state, a performance that left Gates outraged. However, it appears that Gatess anger was growing even before that meeting last summer. According to Goldbergs sources, Gates was flummoxed when new housing units in Jerusalem were announced during Vice President Joe Bidens visit to Israel last March. Had he been in Bidens shoes, he would have returned to Washington immediately andsaid Gates, rehashing former Secretary of State Jim Bakers famous quip told the prime minister to call Obama when he was serious about negotiations. Of course, the Obama administration has had little sympathy for Netanyahu. But Gates, who regularly met with delegations of Israeli military and security officials, was seen as something of an exception, or at least as the point man for what has become the strongest aspect of the alliance, a security relationship unprecedented in scope and depth. Thus, according to the Jerusalem Post, Gates was perfectly suited to deliver the anti-Bibi messagehes a Bush appointee, and hes left government service. That is, the Obama administration gets to take a shot at Netanyahu that wont be tallied up on a scorecard that may be starting to alienate some Jewish support. Moreover, the White House wants credit for its willingness to go to bat for Israel when it vetoes the proposed U.N. resolution this month declaring Palestinian statehood. The administration will oppose the resolution, as Goldberg helpfully spells out, in spite of Netanyahu, not to help him. The fact is, a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is as much of a problem for Washington as it is for Netanyahu and Israeland it is not Bibi who is to blame for the predicament that the White House finds itself in, but Obama himself. A unilateral declaration by the Palestinians is anathema to the longstanding American policy of brokering a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. For U.S. policymakers, the significance of the peace process is not only in getting treaties signedlike the deals with Egypt and Jordanbut it is also the power and prestige that come as a consequence of presiding over negotiations. If the Arabs can get what they want without Washington exercising its leverage on Israel, then the U.S. loses its role as regional power broker. The Obama administration has to veto the resolution not because of Israel, or because of Jewish voters, but because it is an assault on American regional strategy. Perhaps Obama can lay the blame for the current crisis at the feet of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was the first U.S. president to call explicitly for the creation of a Palestinian state. It seems that, for some policymakers and analysts, this suggested that achieving a Palestinian state was a key U.S. policy goal. However, the mere fact of a Palestinian state as such is not an American interest, unless it is the result of a negotiated settlement. Nonetheless, Obama came to office girded with the advice of regional experts who contended that the way to breaking the impasse and winning the Palestinians a state was to strong-arm the Israelis. While Netanyahu would likely prove less malleable than other potential Israeli leaders, few in the administration had any qualms about pushing around a right wing prime minister whod given the last Democratic president a hard time. The Obama White House beat him up over settlement construction, hoping that this would weaken his position as head of a coalition government while also earning the American president bona fides from the Muslim masses. The administration then made two miscalculations. First, given the nature of his coalition, Netanyahu could only be brought down from the right: He could only lose power by committing suicide and succumbing to all of Obamas demands. Second, since the White House had against all precedence premised negotiations on the basis of a full cessation of settlement construction, the Palestinian Authority could not possibly entertain talks without Israel meeting those conditions. Thus, it was Obama who cashiered the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Without any negotiations, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas had nothing to show his own constituency, and beat back the increasing influence of Hamas and other hard-line rivals. With his hands otherwise empty, what forced Abbas to take his case to the U.N. is not Israeli intransigence, but American incompetence. It seems that the administration sees Israels value now largely as a scapegoat. According to Goldberg, Gates believes that Netanyahu is endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israels growing isolation. But the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak and upset Egyptian-Israeli relations was not engineered in Jerusalem. Nor was the Mavi Marmara incident in which Turkey dispatched a flotilla loaded with terrorists to break the maritime blockade of Gaza. Even after a U.N. report effectively cleared Israel, the Obama administration still wanted Jerusalem to apologize to the Turks and now despairs of a breakdown in relations between its two allies. However, the White House must shoulder some of the responsibility for Turkeys actions since it encouraged the Turks to use their influence, especially in Syria, where the administration essentially tasked out its policy to Ankara. When Turkeys soft power regarding Damascus was revealed to be limited, it had to find another way to project power in the region. Accordingly, as Tony Badran writes: [W]henever the regions populist leaders, nationalist or Islamist, wish to make a bid for regional leadership, they reliably use Israel as a proxy theater. Turkey is free to pursue a scorched earth policy with Israel because instead of balancing an uncertain ally like Ankara, the White House has instead empowered it. As one columnist at Maariv noted, When quotes are leaked by former American secretary of defense
telling President Obama that Binyamin Netanyahu is ungrateful
this signal is picked up in our dangerous neighborhood. But thanks partly to Gatess leak, we know where the administration presently stands on Israel. But who knows its position on a post-Mubarak Egypt, a frothing Turkey, and an Iran marching toward a nuclear weapon? The fact is, Israels growing isolation is a function of Americas decreasing regional power.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 2.
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
The USSA is not an honest broker. And Turkey is re asserting it's regional dominance now. And the USSA can NOT veto Palestinian statehood. If anyone of the major networks --- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX --- promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know," about everything mentioned above, she told us. "I can tell the American public exactly what it is, and what it is that they are covering up," she continued. "I'm not compromising ongoing investigations," Edmonds explained, because "they've all been shut down since." Not a single major network has let Edmonds say what she knows. Indeed, Ellsberg says that the government has ordered the media not to touch Edmonds: Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that todays American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations. As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who sat on the NSA spying story for over a year when they could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome. There will be phone calls going out to the media saying dont even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security, he told us.
Sibel Edmonds is a heroine IMO...and good looking too.
#3. To: Fred Mertz (#2)
;} Sibel stumbled on the Turkey Heroin Connection.
cia translator from iran probably a dressed up muslim !
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|