Try Tough Love, Hillary

[dtotire]

Try Tough Love, Hillary


By Roger Cohen
Published: December 1, 2008

Imagine Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister, saying this to Barack Obama:
(

“The United States has been wrong to write Israel a blank check every year; wrong to turn a blind eye to the settlements in the West Bank; wrong not to be more explicit about the need to divide Jerusalem; wrong to equip us with weaponry so sophisticated we now believe military might is the answer to all our problems; and wrong in not helping us reach out to Syria. Your chosen secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said during the campaign that ‘the United States stands with Israel, now and forever.’ Well, that’s not good enough. You need to stand against us sometimes so we can avoid the curse of eternal militarism.”

Perhaps that seems unimaginable. But Olmert has already said something close to this. In a frank September interview with the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, reprinted this month by The New York Review of Books, the Israeli leader chose to exit with a mea culpa for his country’s policies.

Those policies have been encouraged by the Bush administration, whose war on terror was embraced by the Israeli government as a means to frame Israel’s confrontation with the Palestinians as part of the same struggle. No matter that Al Qaeda and the Palestinian national movement are distinct. The facile conflation got Bush in lock step with whatever Israel did.

So, by saying Israel has been wrong, Olmert was also saying the United States has been wrong, even if he never mentioned America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01cohen.html?_r=1&hp

[Kurska]

1. No one cares what olmert is saying anymore

No one, not a single person should be putting stock into the words of that criminal and fraud. Is anti-zionism so important that some democrats are willing to risk a backlash amoung a demographic that has been one of their biggest supporters ever since FDR.

Of course not, the entire concept that hillary is about to get tough on israel is crazy.

[cali]

3. what anti-zionism is in the article posted?

Exactly none. The U.S. needs to stop supporting everything Israel does, no matter how detrimental to Israel, Palestinians and peace, those actions are. The U.S. needs an evenhanded approach to I/P so that movement toward peace is possible. Supporting the terrible oppression and functional occupation of Gaza is just plain wrong.

[LeftishBrit]

5. I don't see this as anti-Zionist

I see it as a suggestion that America should use its 'carrots and sticks' to press Israel to take a more left-wing approach. And America is already using carrots and sticks in a big way with Israel: the aid it gives Israel comes with lots of strings. Everyone (or at least everyone who is not a subscriber to the "ZIONISTS ARE CONTROLLING AMERICA11!!11" conspiracy theories) is doubtless well aware that if Israel defies the American leadership too much, America is quite likely to cut the aid and start eating Freedom Artichokes. America already uses 'tough love' with Israel; the sort of tough love which combines significant aid with outraged complaints if Israel is found to be conducting its own negotiations without American 'PERMISSION'! Exerting pressures in a different direction might be not a bad idea.

Having said that, there is little point in setting out plans for what Hillary should do or not do in her contacts with the Israeli government, until it is clear who the Israeli government is actually going to be. And who its Palestinian negotiating partners will be - that is also in a state of flux.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. Can you provide a recent example of "tough love" dished out by the US? nt

[oberliner]

11. US Puts Pressure on Israel to Refrain from Attacks

U.S. officials have asked Israel to refrain from launching any major military action in the region during the waning days of the Bush presidency, Israeli sources have told TIME. Previously, some Israeli military officials had hinted to the media that if Israel were to carry out its threats to strike at Iranian nuclear installations, it might do so before Barack Obama enters the White House in January. But now a Defense Ministry official says, "We have been warned off."

The call for restraint was relayed to Israeli officials by senior U.S. counterparts, TIME's sources say, and it is likely to be reinforced during Monday's valedictory meeting in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President George W. Bush.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1861524,00.html?imw=Y

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Oh... so by not starting World War IV, Israel did the US some big favor?

[LeftishBrit]

28. In 1991, the US fought a war in the region that led to Scud attacks on Israel...

and expected Israel both to accept this action by the US, and to refrain from retaliation for the attacks. The attacks wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't gone there, and the US expected Israeli co-operation as regards their own (non)-response. Or do you not regard that as recent?

More recently, there was the publicly expressed indignation by US State officials that Israel had entered into negotiations with Syria 'without American permission', which certainly suggests that they are normally expected to get such permission!

[shira]

2. good points but...

...it takes two to tango. Israel can acquiesce to tough love and do whatever it takes short of national suicide, but if the other side remains belligerant, what then? Answer here: __________.

Let's also remember that it wasn't America's tough love that led Israel to Oslo, and the Lebanon and Gaza withdrawals. For that matter, history shows Israel was going to make peace with Egypt with or without Jimmy Carter insisting on it. Israel is perfectly capable of making tough decisions on her own.

[cali]

4. Fine. If Israel is capable of making tough decisions on its own

it should do without massive subsidies from the U.S.

[shira]

6. maybe they get those subsidies

because they've earned the trust of the USA by making sacrifices in this situation all on their own without the tough love. It's not a matter of "if" Israel makes those tough decisions on their own...they DO make tough decisions on their own and the USA climbs aboard.

are you also for regressive regimes doing without massive subsidies from the USA?

[cali]

7. Yes.

And I'm sorry, but I see the relationship the U.S. has with Israel, in need of change. And I am not anti-Israel. Israel needs to make some hard choices that it has NEVER made about such things as settlements. And the U.S. needs to stop condoning this ugly practice.

[HamdenRice]

8. Let me say something unpopular but realistic about how this happens

Let me say initially, that the problems is the paradigm of separate sovereign countries that don't interfere in each others internal affairs. That obviously does not describe the situation with Israel, anymore than it describes the situation with Puerto Rico.

So once we understand how the two countries are interlinked, the US needs to get over its squeamishness about "taking sides" in Israeli politics -- because frankly recent Israeli governments have not been squeamish about taking sides in American politics.

To put it bluntly, the Democrats are allied with Labour; the Republicans are allied with Likud and the successors of Likud and rump Likud.

The roadblock to solving the I/P problem has been domestic Israeli politics. The way to destroy that roadblock is for the US government while under Democratic Party control to massively favor Labour. That support should be blunt and obvious: vote for Labour and get your foreign aid; don't vote for Labour and deal with the world with your own resources.

The Israeli voting public will get a clue and fast.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. Labor, Likud, Kadima, unity gov'ts... they all expand settlements and implement a violent

military occupation.

Some actually think that electing Bibi will offer better long-term prospects for peace:

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/11/endorsement-benjamin-netanyahu-for.html

[oberliner]

12. When have Israeli governments taken sides in American politics?

What are you referring to?

[HamdenRice]

17. You've got to be kidding me. nt

[oberliner]

18. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Any links or sources?

[HamdenRice]

19. At this point, I'm going to restrict my online interactions with members of

the reality based community. If I have to cite sources for the fact that Israeli surrogates participate in US politics -- or for that matter that the British, Chinese, Irish, or any other state actors or aspirant state actor does -- then I think it better we restrict ourselves to separate realms. If you want to talk, I'll be in the reality based sector. If not, I doubt I'll be visiting bizarro world any time soon.

[oberliner]

20. Governments usually stay our of elections in other countries, don't they?

When have the representatives of governments of Brtain, China, or Ireland made statements favoring one candidate or another in our elections?

I honestly don't know what you are talking about.

[LeftishBrit]

21. Actually, Brits have.. but it's unlikely that it makes much impact in America

A year or so ago, McCain visited the UK, and he and Cameron (our Tory leader) expressed a lot of enthusiasm about each other. Closer to the election, Brown said something that sounded like an endorsement of Obama, and, more unexpectedly, so did Boris Johnson, the Tory Mayor of London.

Actually commenting in this way on American elections is a very recent development, though there have been very close relationships between British and American leaders in the past, notably Maggie 'n Ronnie, not to mention Bush 'n Tony.

I doubt that such comments have much influence on American voters, however.

[oberliner]

22. Weren't Tony and Bill mates as well?

They seemed to get along quite well in the early going.

[LeftishBrit]

23. They were. But I don't think it was quite so intense as with Bush.

Or maybe it's just that Bill wasn't dragging us all into an illegal, immoral quagmire of a war, so I didn't notice it as much.

[HamdenRice]

24. I'd be glad to, but first, ...

Just to make sure you're not one of those online time wasters who try to derail discussions by asking for pointless clarifications of obvious facts, first please provide comprehensive and effective definitions of what you mean by:

"example"
"links"
"sources"
"mean"

and

"of".

Thanks in advance.

Then please provide your understanding of the difference between "politics" and "elections."

Then tell me what your understanding of the acronym, "AIPAC" means, and please provide a list of all sources that you have ever consulted in coming to your understanding of what "AIPAC" means. After doing that, please provide a short essay on your understanding of the following term: "AIPAC Franklin Scandal" and in particular, its relationship to your definition of "politics" (please note: not its relationship to your definition of "elections").

Finally, please let me know what is your understanding of the scholarship of "John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt."

But please note: I respectfully ask that you not take my requests out of order. In other words, please do not skip to "John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt" until after you have defined the terms in my first request.

Respectfully, thanks in advance!

:hi:

[oberliner]

25. I'll give it a try!

example: an instance serving to illustrate a point

by "links" I meant "hyperlinks" - these would direct the reader to a web page

source: any firsthand document or reference

mean: to have in mind as the purpose

"of" is a preposition (you used it yourself in your post)

An election is a decision making process where a population chooses an individual to hold official offices. Politics would be anything related to governing and the like.

AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Here is their website: http://www.aipac.org/
Did you know that all of its members are Americans?

I don't know anything about the Franklin Scandal. Please explain what that is.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. That's all that I've read by them.

Can you now please respond to my relatively simple and straightforward question?

Thanks in advance!

[oberliner]

26. Incidentally, in your initial post you did talk about elections not politics

To wit: "vote for Labor and you'll get your aid"

[Vegasaurus]

14. While you're at it, I hope you'll agree

Let's stop propping up Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon etc. with billions of US tax dollars.

[azurnoir]

15. What has Iraq got to do with this?

and as far as "propping up" Iraq what has been done with American tax dollars has been far more dedicated to tearing down.

[Vegasaurus]

16. We have propped up the leaders in Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, that Americans approve of

and then we give them billions and billions of dollars.

The amount of money Israel receives is a fraction (a tiny one at that) of the money given to the other countries, not to mention the amount combined.

[azurnoir]

27. First is America "porpping up governments it's people

approve of or the ones Americas current regime approves of? Most Americans probably could not name the leaders of Pakistan and Egypt. As far as Pakistan goes maybe you have noticed but since Musharraf who was a friend to Bush administration left office having lost the election to Asif Ali Zardari the husband of the late Benazir Bhutto we have been making bombing runs into Pakistan so the continued propping is yet to seen, Egypt has been known to do our dirty work so to speak when it comes to rendition and interrogation of terror suspects and is rewarded for its services.
Iraq is in a class by itself you speak of Iraq as though America has been its military occupier for almost 6 years now and as though it was not America that destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. most of the trillions we have poured into Iraq have been for maintenance of that military occupation not aid to the Iraqi people.