Many foreign policy enthusiasts have long awaited newly elected President Obama's meeting with newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Why didn't they meet sooner? Does Obama secretly dislike Israel? Is Netanyahu arrogant and disrespectful toward American presidents? These kinds of questions are being asked, as well as many other useless, immaterial, entirely pointless questions the intellectually immature, unelected ask about elected individuals working for the best interests of their nations.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been forthright and outspoken in their support for Israel. Even if the President does hold negative feelings for the Jewish state, the US and Israel are so closely integrated on matters of defense and intelligence, from missile defense to online security to activities in Lebanon's Palestinian camps and Hezbollah's international activities, that it is ridiculous to even suggest that America will distance itself in any tangible way from Israel.
Might the Obama Administration pressure Israel more aggressively? Sure, and this would be well within the normal, historical range of US-Israel relations. The United States has supported a two state solution for years, opposes expanding settlements, and the State Department is in high dudgeon whenever the Israeli government demolishes Palestinian property. As Barry Rubin recently put it, US policy toward Israel exists on a scale from the George HW Bush Administration's "realism" to the first 6 years of the George W Bush Administration's "romance" with Israel. The Obama Administration will undoubtedly fall between the two.
At the moment, the Netanyahu government and its press advocates argue that the Obama Administration must take Iran seriously before they take the Palestinian issue seriously, and these same advocates like to pretend that the Obama Administration wants the exact opposite, ie progress on Palestinian statehood before dealing with Iran. This is utter hogwash, as the US is not going to take Iran any less seriously because the Israelis don't want to deal with the Palestinians. Netanyahu's people know this. I don't know why they choose to play this public relations game. This is similar to the games the Syrian regime likes to play, and we've already seen the Obama Administration tactfully shut down Syria's pathetic maneuvers.
PM Netanyahu addresses the American public through manipulative, if not prevaricating language:
“Iran has threatened to annihilate a state,” he said. “In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It’s a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion. Sure, there are perfunctory condemnations, but there’s no j’accuse — there’s no shock.” He argued that one lesson of history is that “bad things tend to get worse if they’re not challenged early.” He went on, “Iranian leaders talk about Israel’s destruction or disappearance while simultaneously creating weapons to ensure its disappearance.”
Netanyahu does not seem to realize that we, the American people, are fully capable of remembering Nikita Krushchev's nuclear backed pronouncement before the UN, "We will bury you." We know exactly what it means to have nuclear raid drills and fear for our existential safety. What Iran is doing is not unprecedented. It fits very well into the pattern of recent nuclear history. It is not a pleasant feeling, but it is most definitely not unprecedented, and it is most definitely something the American people are not ignoring.
Iran's nuclear program and threats to Israel are not going unchallenged in America, as is apparent to everyone from Seymour to the King of Saudi Arabia to Senator John McCain.
Netanyahu's administration might believe that its PR dance is going to sway American opinion into taking a more serious stance on Iran, but in fact, it is having the opposite effect. It is making the current Israeli government appear anti-American.
If Netanyahu truly wants us to recognize him as a moderate, which I believe he is, he and his administration must stop playing games with the American public through Jeffrey Goldberg. A moderate Israeli agenda will play very well with the American public, and it is this kind of agenda the Israeli Administration should elucidate. Subtly suggesting that President Obama is not taking the Iran issue seriously (which is not the case) is a surefire way to make Americans who are allies of Israel and have confidence in their president disgusted with the Netanyahu Administration and eager for a repeat of the Clinton Administration's interference in the Israeli elections, like when they not so subtly supported Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak.
Every word Netanyahu is saying is true. What's less than honest, is this post.
None of that is untrue, or a lie, which is the meaning of "prevaricating."
What prevaricating and manipulative is this post's refusal to see the difference between a Cold War, that could escalate to nuclear use if a conventional war spiraled - and a state which has enshrined suicide-murder, openly talked annihilating the Jews in Israel, and had its leaders speculate that "trading" Iran for Israel's destruction might be acceptable according to the word of Allah. While developing nukes.
If you think that's just normal, and not a new phenomenon on the international scene, you're out of your befogged mind.
But it's the same song that Iranian apologists have been singing for some time now. They're a normal state, they're rational, it's not an existential crisis. None of which is backed up by Iran's rhetoric or actions.
In very specific terms, you're also ignorant of history. One 2 key counts.
One is that Krushchev himself said that his "we will bury you" statement was about economic supercession (which is even funnier, in retrospect).
The other is that Jews have heard fascists talk about annihilating them before, and been told not to worry because they didn't mean it. Only to find out that they absolutely did.
There is nothing remotely unusual about the leader of a Jewish state worrying about a very parallel development. What would be insane would be to see such developments less than a century after the original experience, and not raise the warnings he has raised.
Joe, you said: "...intent to wipe all the Jews of Israel out..." It should read "...intent to wipe all the Jews out..."
Fixed it for you.
Antisemitism has been on the rise world wide for a few years (again). The 0bamanation's actions would not be any different if he intended to abandon Israel as a matter of policy.
(Oh, and as far as calling The Won names, I am giving him the exact same respect the Left gave GWB when he was actually POTUS. None.)
There's a lot more assertion in this post than evidence, probably because it's hard to come up with evidence for falsehoods like "Obama is taking the Iran issue seriously" or "the current Israeli government appears anti-American".
Obama's in a difficult position. He has all the visceral loathing of Israel that you'd expect from an acolyte of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, but he knows the American people would turn on him if he openly allied with Iran as he would like to do. So he will try to be as aggressive as he can, within the normal historical range of American/European-Jewish relations over the past 70 years, and trust in lackeys like Charles Chuman to conceal their grins until a decent interval after the next Holocaust.
The only thing the Israelis have going for them is that Obama is much more interested in destroying the United States than in destroying their country.
President Obama's exact policy toward Israel, as with so many other things, is something of a riddle so far. The signs aren't good on some fronts, while military aid looks set to increase.
Above it all, of course, hangs the Iranians.
One bright spot is the departure of that idiot Prime Minister, and replacement by Netanyahu. Who won't fight as incompetently, or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once winning. Saudi and Egyptian support is there to be had, and has been visible. All Israel has to do is win. Something the last guy (my refusal to utter his name is deliberate) could never, ever do.
But the proxy wars, useful and constructive as they are, won't matter if the Iranians get the means to make good on their ultimate threats.
And Charles, congrats on your promotion to lackey of the President. I had no idea.
Seriously, bgates, I disagree very vehemently with Charles here, but I don't see him as anyone's lackey. I do see him as cruising in a fashionable but foolish stream of opinion, but it's a variety of foolishness that isn't confined to any one party.
As an aside, re: the title, one consideration re: defending America that's less important to the Israelis is, of course, Pakistan. For Israel, there's one clear overriding threat. For America, it's a question of which hydra head grows first.
Heh. That ought to send chills down their spines in Jerusalem.
So when that forthright support turns out to be so much cold piss, we will know who to blame?
Joe,
Here's hyperbole to the extent of prevarication (because Netanyahu knows better):
"“In historical terms, this is an astounding thing. It’s a monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion."
Astounding? Really? In human history, genocide and anti-Semitism are, unfortunately, normal. Who, aside from students of Kievan Rus and the Byzantine Empire, remember the Pechenegs: massacred, wiped out, and/or "absorbed" into other populations?
Unchallenged? According to polls in the United States and Israel, public opinion is completely supportive of an attack on Iranian nuclear weapons. On this, once again, see the venerable Barry Rubin:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/05/american-public-opinion-iran-and-iraq.html
Sure, the US and others boycotting the UN conference on racism, and a number of European countries walking out is a meager public display. However, one must have absolutely no trust in either the Bush or Obama Administrations, the US Armed forces and CIA, the IDF and Mossad, and most European and Arab intelligence agencies to believe that there is no monitoring of the Iranians and that there is not a response ready.
The United States has over 200,000 troops within range of an Iranian nuclear weapon. I have full faith in General Petraeus and the US Central Command to respond an Iranian threat.
And do you think Rahm Emanuel is going to sit on his hands and invite the Middle East Studies Association in for tea if it appears the Iranians are threatening an attack - even conventional - on Israel?
Netanyahu is posturing unnecessarily with a no-nonsense administration, and Jeffrey Goldberg is acting as his mouthpiece. If Netanyahu wants more Israel bonds purchased by American Jews, he can go about getting it through manifesting competent leadership and not avoiding every other pertinent issue.
Is Iran an existential threat to Israel? Of course, and the battle plans are drawn up and ready. This would also be true if Livni or Barak headed the Israeli government.
Does Obama need to take Iran's nuclear program seriously? Of course, and there is no reason to believe that his administration thinks otherwise.
Are Netanyahu's tactics way out of line, and yet similar to the undiplomatic and ineffective tactics he used with Bill Clinton? Yes, and I have every reason to believe that neither Livni or Barak would use such tactics. In the end, Netanyahu's tactics with American administrations alienate both the government and the American people to Israel's detriment.
I think that Netanyahu is a moderate. I have no problem with his premiership. However, I think that his skills are much better channeled through politicians who don't try to manipulate the US as much as he does. He was best serving under Sharon, when his voice was restrained, but his intellect and force of personality revolutionized Israel's financial sector.
Sharon understood the existential threat of Iran. He also understood the other existential threats facing Israel today, and he actively discussed them with President Bush. Bibi should have done the same, especially given that Obama wants to talk about a two-state solution, and the Arabs are changing their peace initiative to come more into line with Israel's desires (given that they are so threatened by Iran that they not only want an end to aggression with Israel, they want peace).
Instead, he alienated his closest ally with an aggressive tone and sensationalist articles about Amalek in the NYT, Atlantic, and elsewhere that primarily met the eyes of the American Jewish community (although his exaggerations were ridiculed in the Forward), and only went toward discrediting the American president, whom Netanyahu will need in the event of an Iranian threat.
Sorry, I pressed "submit" when I meant to press preview and didn't get a chance to edit my comment. The gist of my argument is there, although it isn't clear at times.
Are you saying that Netanyahu writes Jeffrey Goldberg's stuff?
I think there is a case privately for urging Israel not to cry wolf so many times on a matter of this importance (officials under Netanyahu's predecessor did this as much as the current Prime Minister). Historically, Israel has never signaled its intention to conduct a long-range preemptive airstrike prior to actually doing so. Toward Iran, over the last year or two, Israeli officials have been announcing every three months their intention to take action. If Israel threatens to attack so many times and then repeatedly postpones doing so, sooner or later the credibility of the threat will be affected.
Still, I would agree that Israel has every right to take Iranian statements at their word. But the fact that Israel (and America) are presumably prepared to act does not answer the question of the appropriate action to take.
I would not be encouraged by the retirement of the Israeli leadership that conducted the 2006 Lebanon war. The problem with Iran goes way beyond the problems exposed in 2006 that the Israelis have presumably corrected by now. The problem with Iran is strategic in a much larger sense. As a result of an airstrike Iran could suffer an immediate military defeat, as measured in targets destroyed. But a defeat that leaves its territory unoccupied (we are not going to occupy it), leaves the present clerical government in power, and leaves its knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons intact, will not leave Iran inert for long.
Even if Iran cannot assemble a nuke five years later, they could switch to cheaper bioweapons that are easier to conceal. It is only a matter of time before it becomes possible for anyone with a graduate knowledge of microbiology to create lethal human pathogens.
For this reason Israel's situation may be getting better as well as worse. Better because the threats on the horizon (nuclear proliferation, biological terrorism) threaten every nation and not just Israel. Worse because the threats could impact Israel first. The challenge to Israeli (and American) diplomacy right now is to make a case that more effectively mobilizes the self-interest of the larger world or at least a large enough part of it.
"I would not be encouraged by the retirement of the Israeli leadership that conducted the 2006 Lebanon war. The problem with Iran goes way beyond the problems exposed in 2006 that the Israelis have presumably corrected by now."
The problems exposed in 2006 in Lebanon were the Israeli leadership. They had a fundamental inability to conduct a serious war to a decisive conclusion.
Say what you will about Netanyahu, he doesn't have that character flaw.
mark @ 10:
And according to the guys I know in the IDF they has serious problems with logistics. They did not draw back every night because they were scared or they had to or..... They drew back because they could not resupply fast or far enough. That hamstrung the tank columns from pushing to the Litani River and cutting off Hezbollah with all of the fall out that has produced. The IDF has purged the officer corps that eff'ed that up AND fixed the logistics problems. The last action in Gaza showed that logistics was not the problem. There were other problems in that action - Lilly livered political leadership and that political leadership listening to the UN NGO's. Those NGO's are feckless, at best.