America locks its own chains
To read the British media on the Obama/Israel crisis is to enter a different moral universe and sphere of reality. In the US, as I wrote yesterday, there has been enormous upset over the fight that Obama so egregiously picked with Israel over the supreme non-event of continuing to build in an orthodox Jewish neighbourhood of east Jerusalem. Even the Washington Post questioned Obama’s
quickness to bludgeon the Israeli government.
On Politico, Ben Smith noted the cross party nature of the uproar:
Democratic critics have begun to question the White House's public pressure on Netanyahu to reverse plans for controversial new housing and make other, unspecified concessions... Pennsylvania Rep. Christopher Carney, a Democrat, and Illinois Republican Rep. Mark Kirk are sending a letter this morning to President Obama asking the administration to climb down.
while Fox News reported:
The Obama administration is drawing fierce criticism from both sides of the aisle for appearing to take dead aim at U.S. policy toward Israel by exploiting a dispute that began as a mere bureaucratic blunder.
Since then, the Obamites have been trying to douse the flames they so crassly fanned. You would never know that, of course, from the coverage in the Guardian which, as CiFWatch well observes, has viciously ignored or up-ended the crucial context in order to fashion the crisis into another stick with which to beat Israel. And in the Times today (whatever has happened to the Times? Its intellectual grasp has simply disintegrated into a jelly) the former Tory Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind simply cannot conceive that this brouhaha can possibly be anything other than Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s fault: the only question, apparently, is whether Netanyahu is incompetent or malevolent.
It doesn’t occur to Rifkind that the unceasing incitement by the Palestinians (in recent days over the non-existent threat to the Al Aqsa mosque and the re-opening in the Old City’s Jewish Quarter of the ancient Hurva synagogue) is the real stumbling block to peace; nor the fact that only Israel has made concessions while the Palestinian aggressors have made none and are never expected to do so; nor the fact that they refuse ever to accept the very existence of a Jewish state. No, the only obstacle in Rifkind’s mind is the Israeli settlements. Never mind that the Palestinians are the aggressors in this eight-decade war; to Rifkind, they ‘deserve’ a state. Never mind that the Palestinians have repeatedly turned down the offer of such a state on the vast majority of the disputed land; Rifkind knows it’s all Israel’s fault, whatever happens. Such is the third-rate drivel that passes in Britain for analysis of the Middle East.
Elsewhere, analysis is rather more intelligent and well-informed. On Slate, Lee Smith understands that the real casualty of the Obama/Israel crisis -- at the root of which is Obama’s strategy of sucking up to America’s enemies while slapping down its friends -- is America’s influence in the region:
But here’s the most important thing: Even if you discount the centrality of shame and honor as operative principles in the Middle East, the Obama administration has blundered by jeopardizing not Israel’s stature but our own regional interests and the Pax Americana that has been ours over the last 35 years. Our position in the region depends on every actor there knowing that we back Israel to the hilt and that they are dependent on us. Sure, there are plenty of times we will not see eye-to-eye on things—differences that should be resolved in quiet consultations—but should any real distance open up between Washington and Jerusalem, that will send a message that the U.S.-backed order of the region is ready to be tested. And that's exactly what the axis of resistance is seeing right now.
The recent U.S.-Israeli contretemps is not about progress on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. It is about Iran. The Obama administration has all but announced that it has resigned itself to an Iranian nuclear program and that it is moving toward a policy of containment and deterrence. We will extend a nuclear umbrella to protect our Arab allies in the Gulf, says Secretary of State Clinton, and we will continue to give Israel security guarantees. And, anyway, says Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, the Iranians are probably years away from building a deployable nuclear weapon. In rattling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cage, the Obama administration was warning Israel not even to contemplate an attack on Iran.
Of course, really effective deterrence would require us to make sure that our Israeli allies were perceived as highly volatile and unpredictable actors who might just take matters into their own hands and bomb Iran's nuclear sites. That scenario would have a better chance of cornering Iran and its allies, compelling them to seek relief from us, the rational senior partner. Instead, we’ve just pulled off the strategic equivalent of beating our pit bull on a street corner to show the neighborhood tough guys that we mean business.
President Obama is not intentionally trying to sacrifice our position in the energy-rich and strategically vital Middle East, but his policies may well lead to that. Strategic realignment doesn’t just mean that Washington gets to trade in one set of allies for another. It means that the American order of the region will be superseded by a new order in which we will play a secondary role at best. More likely, as Ahmadinejad and Assad say, it will mean a Middle East without American influence.
In The New Republic, meanwhile, Yossi Klein Halevi writes a typically thoughtful and incisive assessment of the catastrophic consequences of Obama’s hissy fit against Israel – catastrophic for the very ‘peace process’ which is his ostensible driving force:
Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the history of Middle East negotiations. Though Palestinian leaders negotiated with Israeli governments that built extensively in the West Bank, they now refused to sit down with the first Israeli government to actually agree to a suspension of building. Obama's demand for a building freeze in Jerusalem led to a freeze in negotiations. Finally, after intensive efforts, the administration produced the pathetic achievement of ‘proximity talks’—setting Palestinian-Israeli negotiations back a generation, to the time when Palestinian leaders refused to sit at the same table with Israelis.
That Obama could be guilty of such amateurishness was perhaps forgivable because he was, after all, an amateur. But he has now taken his failed policy and intensified it. By demanding that Israel stop building in Ramat Shlomo and elsewhere in East Jerusalem—and placing that demand at the center of American-Israeli relations—he's ensured that the Palestinians won't show up even to proximity talks. This is no longer amateurishness; it is pique disguised as policy.
Elsewhere, speculation continues that what Obama is really trying to do is neutralise Netanyahu. Never forget, after all, that before he was elected Obama observed he would find it difficult to work with a Likud government. Now journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, thought to be close to Obama, reports that the President is trying to force Kadima leader Tzipi Livni into Netanyahu’s cabinet. If true, this would be an outrageous attempt by the US to interfere in the internal politics of a democratic sovereign state.
But given Obama’s radical background, circle and whole mindset, this surely goes far deeper than Netanyahu. It’s a mindset, moreover, that he shares with the whole western post-nation, post-objective, post-moral intelligentsia on both left and right (which is what is now coming to dominate the pages of the Times). Here’s an excellent analysis by Barry Rubin of why the Obama administration is beating up on Israel:
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. 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... In short, the Administration is falling for the oldest trick, the most venerable con-game, in the Middle East book: Move away from Israel, pressure Israel, solve the conflict, and all the Arab governments will love America and do what it wants them to do.
What makes this even more ridiculous is that now 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 the weakness of Obama and the coming triumph of Iran in the region.
It’s worth reading the whole of this very grounded analysis. But there’s a yet further, and chilling, sting in the tail. Rubin writes:
I have been informed that on a number of occasions that my criticisms of the Obama Administration have led to my being denied certain opportunities regarding projects and writing venues.
Ah yes. Of course. John Bull long ago turned into a lemming, but the Land of the Free is now in the process of locking its own chains.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (16)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray
2 We must be honest about honour killings - William Maxwell
3 Storm in an Indian teacup - Daniel Korski
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Mosh
March 18th, 2010 12:24pmRamat Shmolo is not in "east Jerusalem".
Please look at a map of Jerusalem and see for yourself.
bergeron
March 18th, 2010 3:00pmWell, Melanie. If the 'healtcare' abomination takeover of the geovernment passes without an actual vote this week-end, the Republic of the United States is effectively dead. You're dealing with just another garden variety Social Democrat state, like the rest of the anti-semitic members of the EU.
steve
March 18th, 2010 3:18pmSince you mentioned Jeffrey Goldberg, here's his take on the current Israeli government's three stooges approach to diplomacy:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/03/israels-foreign-relations-incompetence-stupidity-or-chaos/37638/
Chris R
March 18th, 2010 4:26pmYou're challenging the Times's intellectual grasp whilst quoting Fox news??????
In the Wildernes in America
March 18th, 2010 4:27pmThe Obama administration is making a lot of noise lately at the expense of our friend of 60 years and the only democratic country in the Middle East, Israel.
First, the facts:
• While Vice President Joe Biden was in Israel to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, Israel’s housing minister announced that 1,600 housing units would be built in a settlement in East Jerusalem.
• To restart the peace process, Israel previously agreed to a partial 10 month freeze involving the building of settlements.
• That freeze did not include East Jerusalem.
• Hillary Clinton, at the time (October 2009), praised the agreement.
• Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton knew of the East Jerusalem exclusion. So did Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
• After the announcement that settlement units would be built, Netanyahu only apologized for the timing of the building announcement not the fact that the units are being built.
Now, the politics:
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a call to Netanyahu for 45 minutes claiming that it was “insulting” that Joe Biden was treated in this way and that Israel would have to make amends.
• After the announcement about the housing units, Joe Biden told Netanyahu that: “What you're doing here undermines the security of who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.” Biden’s assessment was attributed to General David Petraeus.
• The White House in the form of David Axelrod in a Sunday interview said that the peace process "was absolutely imperative" not only for "the security of Israel and the Palestinian people but "for our own security that ... we resolve this very difficult issue". This was an allusion to the message from Joe Biden to Netanyahu above concerning the statement by General Petraeus.
The sad thing is that the White House is equating Israeli capitulation involving the peace process with the safety of our troops. That is not only a low blow, it is also disingenuous. Muslims might look more kindly on our troops if the peace process was moving forward, but that’s not a given, and Islamists whom we are fighting don’t give a damn about any peace agreement because they want the elimination of Israel and Jews. In addition, Israel cannot sit down at the peace table if it means giving up its right to build settlements in its own territory. Besides, Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, knew of the East Jerusalem exclusion months before and was ready to have indirect negotiations without saying so much as a peep.
So, then, what’s going on here? There are many forces at work. Here are the most serious:
The Con Job: The Palestinian Authority will not give up anything in negotiations as long as it can con the Obama administration, or any American administration, into believing its assertion that it is being victimized by Israel. Yassir Arafat in his negotiations with Israel and the U.S. over decades was a master at this. Abbas learned from the master.
Ideological Delusion/Racism: Obama’s leftist soul will not allow him to favor Israel. The loony left has made a surreptitious pact with the devil, namely the Islamists of the world, to forward their radicalized view about justice for “disenfranchised” people and people of color at all costs. They don’t realize that in the process, they have traded one tyranny for another, throwing homosexuals and women under the bus while ideologically cozying up to the mullahs against the “fascist” Israelis. There is also the racist evil known as anti-Semitism, which is prevalent in the West (especially Europe) and associated largely with the left. Remember the Reverend Wright, the spiritual advisor to Obama, who was a raging anti-Semite?
The Big Lie: Peace junkies claim that if only the Israelis would prostrate themselves in front of the peace table and accede to whatever the Palestinians want, that there would be peace forever in the region. This, they claim, is what Iran wants and all Muslims want. Baloney! If there was a Palestinian/Israeli peace accord tomorrow, Iran would still rush to get nuclear weapons operational and still fund terrorists through Hamas, Saudi Arabia would still secretly fund terrorism through their Wahhabi religious sect, and Syria would still fund terrorism through Hezbollah. The reason: These terrorists despise Israel and want it and the Jews to be wiped off the map.
America should not give up on its only friend in the Middle East, especially when Iran is so close to having the means of a first strike nuclear attack. But, with Obama at the helm and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden being stupid and dishonest, it is a risky business. They just might leave Israel in the lurch. If that is the case, Netanyahu and Israel will have a tough go of it to take out the nuclear facilities in Iran. Nevertheless, either way, whether America provides support or not, Israel will strike and soon. The future survival of her people demands it.
Assuming that America leaves Israel at the gate, when the Israeli strike happens, Barack, Hillary, and Joe can now blame the resulting war partly on settlements being constructed by Israel in East Jerusalem. The European Union and the United Nations, those perennial enemies of Israel, will strongly and immediately agree. With the Obama administration, when the crisis happens, they will devise anything for an excuse and above all display no courage or loyalty or decency.
Carl
March 18th, 2010 6:10pmHopefully, the USA and Turkey between them will prevent any Israeli attack on Iran, saving the world from a cataclysmic war started purely out of malice.
It would be well to recall Moshe Dayan's threat to launch nuclear weapons at targets in Europe and the Middle East.
dog
March 18th, 2010 7:23pmCarl, you are on notice that the Jews of Israel are not the Jews of 1933-1945.
There is a line beyond which Western perfidy will bring down upon post-Christian and neo-jihadist societies such adversity that the globe has never before witnessed.
blue_&_white_avenger
March 18th, 2010 7:32pmCarl - what are you on about?
I can see that the US has some influence on Israel - but not as regards its national defence/existence. But Turkey has none worth speaking about.
Talking about malice, that seems to be a one-way street with all of it directed by the Iranian dictatorship against Israel (and incidentally not felt by the man on the Teheran omnibus when there's gas to run them).
"It would be well to recall Moshe Dayan's threat to launch nuclear weapons at targets in Europe and the Middle East". - it would be - especially if Dayan ever said anything like that, which he didn't.
Paul Joe
March 18th, 2010 7:37pmCarl @ 6:10pm: "Hopefully, the USA and Turkey between them will prevent any Israeli attack on Iran, saving the world from a cataclysmic war started purely out of malice."
That's the first time I've heard pre-emptive defencive strategic removal of nuclear arsenal from a hostile warring neighbour described as "malice".
That's pretty sick actually.
Derek BLADES
March 18th, 2010 9:04pmSomething calling itself "dog" wrote "There is a line beyond which Western perfidy will bring down upon post-Christian and neo-jihadist societies such adversity that the globe has never before witnessed."
What sort of "adversity" does dog have in what passes for his mind? Is it the kind of thing that Moshe Dayan threatened us with?
Adam B.
March 18th, 2010 11:02pmHopefully, Carl, the Western world may grow a spine and not allow an Iranian nuclear Holocaust against Israel. The ominous signs are that no-one will lift a finger to stop it.
The Jews of the first half of the twentieth century put their faith in being protected by the great powers. They learnt their lesson. They will never place their lives in the hands of others again. Israel must take whatever action it can to prevent an Iranian nuclear attack - and not place its survival at the mercy of others.
Adam B.
March 18th, 2010 11:04pmChris R, perhaps you could address the substance? Or does the source invalidate the substance?
I which case, I don't believe anything on the BBC, in the Guardian or the Independent.
Augustus
March 18th, 2010 11:09pmYou'd have to be pretty far left in politics to believe that building a few extra homes in Jerusalem in a couple of years time constitutes an 'obstacle to peace'. The overwhelming consensus in Israel regards Jerusalem as Israel's indivisable capital. And in the unlikely event that they managed to win an election, even Tzipi and Kadima wouldn't go down that road if they wanted to stay in power.
Unfortunately, Obama's main foreign policy goal is to ingratiate America with the Muslim world. And part of that involves destroying America's relationship with Israel. Sarah Palin was right when she said recently: "Once again the Obama administration is missing the boat on a very important issue.
They need to go back to basics and acknowledge that Palestinian leaders have not progressed any peace process since President Obama was elected. As Israel makes concessions (and is still criticized by the Obama administration), Arab leaders just sit back waiting for the White House to further pressure Israel. The Obama administration needs to open its eyes and recognize that it is only Iran and her terrorist allies who benefit from this manufactured Israeli controversy...right now, thanks to the Obama administration there is a chasm. It's time for Obama to push the reset button on our relations with Israel"
But given whom Barack Hussein Obama is; the product of a marriage between a third world Muslim diplomat and a left-wing anthropologist, and having been brought up to swallow the line about the evils in American society, Western colonialism and imperialism, of which the Zionists in Palestine were considered an outpost, don't expect any progress in that direction anytime soon. Until Obama, and his anti-Israeli policies, become just another bad American memory, Israel will just have to trust in itself.
bergeron
March 19th, 2010 12:17amJust a refresher for those who've been asleep for the last several years: back during the Clinton administration, Arafat got 98% of what he demanded and he turned it down, wouldn't sign. There is no 'peace process' as it is laughingly called. The Arabs want nothing other than the total anihilation of Israel. The only thing Israel can do is die.
phil
March 19th, 2010 12:13pmCarl
March 18th, 2010 6:10pm you need not postpone your holiday to any point islamic for fear of Moshe D or his successors .Most of us would be happy to fund your journey and guarantee your safety along with your comical chum AKA the blade ,both of you a wonderful blend of malice and comedy ,what your purpose here is I do not know ,maybe self flagellation ,nevertheless you are worth the price of the entry fee as you never fail to give me a laugh.
Sergey
March 19th, 2010 2:06pmIsrael actually need not US cooperation to bomb Iran. This can be done by cruise missles launched from "Dolphin" class submarines in Persian Gulf. Neither precision guided bunker-busters bombs are needed, small tactical nukes will do the job just as handily. But Israel for sure would prefer this attack be a cooperative effort, with using Iraqi air space and without nukes. Obama's hostility only pushes Israel to unilateral and more drastic action.