2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2010/04/06/daniel-pipes-when-israel-stood-up-to-the-u-s/
0
0
  |   46 comments

As tensions between Israel and the U.S. “climb to unfamiliar heights,” Daniel Pipes looks back at “a prior round of tensions nearly thirty years ago, when Menachem Begin and Ronald Reagan were in charge. In contrast to Binyamin Netanyahu’s repeated apologies, Begin adopted a quite different approach.”

When the Reagan administration criticized Israel for actually acting in its own interests, Begin lashed out:

“Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has ‘punished’ Israel,” Begin began. He enumerated those three occasions: the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, the bombing of the PLO headquarters in Beirut, and now the Golan Heights law. Throughout this exposition, according to Avner, Lewis interjected but without success: “Not punishing you, Mr. Prime Minister, merely suspending …,” “Excuse me, Mr. Prime Minister, it was not …,” “Mr. Prime Minister, I must correct you …,” and “This is not a punishment, Mr. Prime Minister, it’s merely a suspension until …”

Fully to vent his anger, Begin drew on a century of Zionism:

What kind of expression is this – “punishing Israel”? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don’t behave properly, are slapped across the fingers? Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with “punishments.” He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments. You have no right to “punish” Israel – and I protest at the very use of this term.

Pipes concludes:

(5) Politicians in other countries quite frequently attack the United States. Indeed, Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, did so last week. But his purpose – to convince his countrymen that he is not, in fact, a kept politician – differed fundamentally from Begin’s of asserting Israel’s dignity.

(6) It is difficult to imagine any other Israeli politician, Binyamin Netanyahu included, who would dare to pull off Begin’s verbal assault.

(7) Yet that might be just what Israel needs.

I fear Pipes is right. It’s time for Israel to stand up to Obama.

The relationship between both has turned sour; not because of anything Israel has done, but because of the new president’s apparent dislike for the Jewish nation-state. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has to stop apologizing and pretending that Obama doesn’t mean wrong. He does, for he’s no friend of Israel.

  1. Posted by Evil
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110458
    Evil "but because of the new president’s apparent dislike for the Jewish nation-state" Likud administration != Israel, no matter how much Benjamin tries to act that way. Also, trying to describe Netanyahu as some knee-scraper is pretty much disgusting and baffling enough to warrant some kind of section over at rotten.com.
    • Posted by Patrick Glenn
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110460
      Patrick Glenn Do you support the Obama administration's efforts to destablize the Netanyahu administration - i.e, regime change? I ask because you jumped over the question of whether the administration is exhibiting its "dislike" of the Israeli government (thereby tacitly agreeing with this notion), by suggesting that Likud does not equal the "Jewish nation-state." And if so, does that mean that Obama "likes" the Iranian regime better? Also, do you think it's proper for the Obama administration to meddle in the internal political affairs of one our strongest allies?
      • Posted by Jeb42
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110476
        Jeb42
        Do you support the Obama administration's efforts to destablize the Netanyahu administration - i.e, regime change?
        Perhaps I have missed something. What attempts has Obama made to destabilize the Netanyahu administration? Do they amount to more than a reaction to Netanyahu's administration insulting our administration by timing the announcement of the new settlements to coincide with Biden's visit? Taking the example above with Reagan and Begin, do you think that Reagan disliked Israel and do you think he was trying to destabilize the Begin administration with an eye towards regime change? if so was it appropriate then? If not, what distinguishes Reagan's negative response to Israel from Obama's (which you seem to believe has the aim of regime change)?
        • Posted by Patrick Glenn
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110482
          Patrick Glenn Many analysts on both sides of the political divide have surmised that the Obama administration's goal is to encourage regime change in Israel. See:http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeq... titled, "US may be seeking Israel 'regime change." See also Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, "What Obama is Actually Trying to Do in Israel," and Caroline Glick, "Obama's Jewish Defenders." See below, in my comment to Evil, in re: Netanyahu did not play a role in the timing of the announcement. On the other hand, the whole thing might have been a pretext for trying to weaken the Israeli administration, possibly instigated either from domestic or foreign opponents.
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110496
            Jeb42
            not all diplomatic disagreements are rooted in attempts to change regimes
            What makes you think that the Obama administration is attempting to change the Israeli regime? What is it that makes his stern talk with Israel so different in degree from what Reagan did so that you view one as an attempt at regime change and not the other?
            Many analysts on both sides of the political divide have surmised that the Obama administration's goal is to encourage regime change in Israel
            The first two articles seem to amount to "some say" it could be this or he could just be playing hardball and that Obama would prefer Livni as a partner in peace negotiations. On the first I would guess he is just playing hardball and on the second, he would not likely be upset if the next election ended up with Livni and Kadima as part of a new government. Remember, as pointed out in the first article, that HW Bush actually did what 'some' are suggesting that Obama intends with Rabin as his Livni. It didn't end our close alliance with Israel when Reagan took a hard stance, nor did Bush/Baker's alliance with a rising Rabin, nor will Obama's current actions (whether or not he voices support for Livni). At worst this causes a temporary frostiness in US Israel relations and hardens Netanyahu's position (though it would be hard to ossify further). The Glick article seems so to be so much conspiracy theorizing with a few flights of fancy thrown in. She actually said,
            Obama's expressed desire to overthrow the democratically elected government of Israel
            of course without attribution. Couple this with her theorizing the the announcement of the development in E Jerusalem by Eli Yishai was orchestrated by Kadima (laughable on its face) and I very much doubt her credibility. BTW regime change sounds so much more ominous than supports political opponent in the upcoming election don't you think?
            Netanyahu did not play a role in the timing of the announcement.
            It happened on his watch and embarrassed a visiting dignitary. It was announced by the head of Shas (one leg of his three part coalition). Expanding Jewish settlement building in E Jerusalem and elsewhere is a core issue for Yishai. The right wingers in Israel were trying to play hardball with Obama and Biden and it backfired.
            which btw involved a routine planning approval step for a development project within a part of Jerusalem that is well understood to be part of Israel under ANY potential agreement
            That is certainly Netanyahu's position but, East Jerusalem is disputed territory and Israel's right to sovereignty there is not recognized by the international community nor is it officially recognized by the US Government (despite a congressional overstep in 1995). Obama has been clear that he does not want continued expansion of Jewish only settlement in East Jerusalem prior to peace negotiations, since he sees it as an impediment to same. The timing of the announcement was a either a direct and intentional insult by Yishai to Biden and the Obama administration or he is an idiot.
            On the other hand, the whole thing might have been a pretext for trying to weaken the Israeli administration, possibly instigated either from domestic or foreign opponents.
            As mentioned above the announcement was made by Eli Yishai, the head of the Shas Party. The Shas party is hard right, part of Netanyahu's governing coalition, and Yishai has made building in E Jerusalem one of his core missions. The idea that the timing of this was orchestrated by left wing opponents of Netanyahu is not at all credible.
            We get as much, if not more, benefit from the relationship than does Israel.
            I think that proposition would be a difficult one to support.
            I've seen very little evidence that Obama is a "friend" to Israel and the Israeli people reject that notion by a very wide margin.
            Not according to the latest Haaretz polling.
            U.S. President Barack Obama's popularity may be declining in American public opinion, but a sweeping majority of Israelis think his treatment of this country is friendly and fair, according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted this week. The poll also found that most Israelis don't believe politicians who call Obama anti-Semitic or hostile to Israel, or who say he is "striving to topple Netanyahu." The poll, which was conducted Tuesday and Wednesday and supervised by Professor Camil Fuchs, comes after reports of a crisis in diplomatic relations due to Israel's announcement during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden
            http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157626.html
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110495
            Jeb42
            not all diplomatic disagreements are rooted in attempts to change regimes
            What makes you think that the Obama administration is attempting to change the Israeli regime? What is it that makes his stern talk with Israel so different in degree from what Reagan did so that you view one as an attempt at regime change and not the other?
            Many analysts on both sides of the political divide have surmised that the Obama administration's goal is to encourage regime change in Israel
            The first two articles seem to amount to "some say" it could be this or he could just be playing hardball and that Obama would prefer Livni as a partner in peace negotiations. On the first I would guess he is just playing hardball and on the second, he would not likely be upset if the next election ended up with Livni and Kadima as part of a new government. Remember, as pointed out in the first article, that HW Bush actually did what 'some' are suggesting that Obama intends with Rabin as his Livni. It didn't end our close alliance with Israel when Reagan took a hard stance, nor did Bush/Baker's alliance with a rising Rabin, nor will Obama's current actions (whether or not he voices support for Livni). At worst this causes a temporary frostiness in US Israel relations and hardens Netanyahu's position (though it would be hard to ossify further). The Glick article seems so to be so much conspiracy theorizing with a few flights of fancy thrown in. She actually said,
            Obama's expressed desire to overthrow the democratically elected government of Israel
            of course without attribution. Couple this with her theorizing the the announcement of the development in E Jerusalem by Eli Yishai was orchestrated by Kadima (laughable on its face) and I very much doubt her credibility. BTW regime change sounds so much more ominous than supports political opponent in the upcoming election don't you think?
            Netanyahu did not play a role in the timing of the announcement.
            It happened on his watch and embarrassed a visiting dignitary. It was announced by the head of Shas (one leg of his three part coalition). Expanding Jewish settlement building in E Jerusalem and elsewhere is a core issue for Yishai. The right wingers in Israel were trying to play hardball with Obama and Biden and it backfired.
            which btw involved a routine planning approval step for a development project within a part of Jerusalem that is well understood to be part of Israel under ANY potential agreement
            That is certainly Netanyahu's position but, East Jerusalem is disputed territory and Israel's right to sovereignty there is not recognized by the international community nor is it officially recognized by the US Government (despite a congressional overstep in 1995). Obama has been clear that he does not want continued expansion of Jewish only settlement in East Jerusalem prior to peace negotiations, since he sees it as an impediment to same. The timing of the announcement was a either a direct and intentional insult by Yishai to Biden and the Obama administration or he is an idiot.
            On the other hand, the whole thing might have been a pretext for trying to weaken the Israeli administration, possibly instigated either from domestic or foreign opponents.
            As mentioned above the announcement was made by Eli Yishai, the head of the Shas Party. The Shas party is hard right, part of Netanyahu's governing coalition, and Yishai has made building in E Jerusalem one of his core missions. The idea that the timing of this was orchestrated by left wing opponents of Netanyahu is not at all credible.
            We get as much, if not more, benefit from the relationship than does Israel.
            I think that proposition would be a difficult one to support.
            I've seen very little evidence that Obama is a "friend" to Israel and the Israeli people reject that notion by a very wide margin.
            Not according to the latest Haaretz polling.
            U.S. President Barack Obama's popularity may be declining in American public opinion, but a sweeping majority of Israelis think his treatment of this country is friendly and fair, according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted this week. The poll also found that most Israelis don't believe politicians who call Obama anti-Semitic or hostile to Israel, or who say he is "striving to topple Netanyahu." The poll, which was conducted Tuesday and Wednesday and supervised by Professor Camil Fuchs, comes after reports of a crisis in diplomatic relations due to Israel's announcement during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden
            http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157626.html
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110500
            Patrick Glenn Jeb, you make several good points, but others that are misleading. I'll first respond to the good ones (I haven't figured out yet how to make a long comment using this system) . . . You're right, there are other possible reasons why the Obama administration had suddenly decided to take such a public, hard line - but the "regime change" scenario is actually one of the milder scenarios. Other possibilities: 1. Obama's views on development in east Jerusalem are aligned with the hardline Palestinian position and/or anti-Israel Islamists and transnationalists from other nations - i.e., he was upset about what the planning decision, itself, respresents, not just the PR/prestige aspects of its timing, etc. Several administration officials have tried to downplay this scenario because it would be politically suicidal in the U.S. to be against Israeli development within their own city, but maybe you think that's Obama's real orientation toward Israel?
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110501
            Patrick Glenn Scenario 2. The Obama administration officials were doing a lot of blustering because they knew that Israel was planning an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and wanted to publicly distance the administration from the Netanyahu administration to help manage the fallout, etc. This scenario seems unlikely for at least three reasons: first, it seems doubtful that Obama would sign off on an Israeli preemptive attack; second, few people would believe that the U.S. was caught by surprise, didn't really condone it, etc.; third, because most observers would then look back on the Obama administration's rebuke of Netanyahu as gamesmanship, Obama's engagement with the "Islamic world" would look contrived and would further erode his standing, etc.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110503
            Patrick Glenn Scenario 3: Obama administration blustering was partly designed for political consumption - domestic and in the Middle East. Domestic: on the heels of the flawed HC law, the administration could take a public position that would be popular with its activist base, about 6 mos. before mid-term elections. Middle East: when the administration's hard line "peace" plan falls apart again (Hamas et al have no real interest in peace, rather the destruction of Israel), they can say they did everything they could, etc. At the same time, down the road, they would also be able to say to domestic Jewish voters and groups that they were always strongly behind Israel, because - for all their blustering - the realities "on the ground" would not have changed. Do you have another scenario I'm leaving out?
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110519
            Jeb42 Scenario 3.5: It is at least in part political theater to convince the Palestinians that Obama will be sympathetic to their concerns in the upcoming negotiations. If the Palestinian street is convinced that their concerns have a sympathetic ear then it is much more likely that some progress can be made. A plurality of Israeli's will likely think that Obama is either neutral or sympathetic to Israel and that also helps. Domestically it works against the he is weak in foreign affairs myth. Scenario 4: The Obama administration was actually upset about both the announcement and its timing because they saw it not as just a political affront but as an impediment to upcoming peace negotiations. Scenario 5: Were Obama not to have responded harshly to what most people in the world and even in Israel saw as an insult he would have appeared weak and that would be counterproductive in the upcoming negotiations. My best guess is some combination of my three proposals and that he would not be at all upset if this resulted in Livni being brought in to the Israeli governing coalition. I think that the best chance for progress in the peace process is with an Israeli government coalition of Likud and Kadima. I don't know if it much matters whether it is Netanyahu Livni or the other way around.
          • Posted by Interested
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110522
            Interested The best chance at a real peace progress is for Israel to capitulate themselves and adhere to every demand of the Palestinians (who have no Country), while absorbing each and every continued attack by the Palestinians various groups on her citizens. At least in the eyes of the Palestinians, most of Europe and of course the Middle-East. Not to mention the far left in the U.S. Anything shy of that will not produce peace. Or at least peace as currently defined by the Palestinians. Only then will they have no more excuse to reign in their activities that goad the Israeli's to respond.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110536
            Patrick Glenn Your scenario 4: in general, such planning approvals happen on a weekly/monthly basis, although this was for a relatively big proposed project, so the announcement was not surprising. In this case, it was like step-4 of a 7-step process. Those who argued that the Obama administration was mainly upset about the timing suggested that it would have been okay (wink, wink) if the Israelis had just waited to make the announcement after Biden had left. If Obama administration were upset about the announcement, itself, that suggests it believes the Israelis should shut down all development in East Jerusalem. Yet the vast majority of Isrealis would never support a "peace" deal that involved giving away that area. Does Obama intend to impose a such land redistribution arrangement on the Israelis? That approach might be popular with the anti-Israel crowd, but would be quite unpopular among U.S. voters - that's why many Democrats stressed the "timing" issue. The irony of your argument, then, is that you're using quite reasonable language to describe a policy position that is even more radical than I was ready to assume.
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110542
            Jeb42
            Those who argued that the Obama administration was mainly upset about the timing suggested that it would have been okay (wink, wink) if the Israelis had just waited to make the announcement after Biden had left.
            The timing made it near impossible to ignore. Had the timing been different the response would likely have been less forceful.
            If Obama administration were upset about the announcement, itself, that suggests it believes the Israelis should shut down all development in East Jerusalem.
            It has been the stated opinion of the Obama administration that there should be a hold on new Jewish only settlements in all disputed territories including East Jerusalem until after negotiations. (Netanyahu only agreed to a hold on building in other disputed territories, excluding E Jerusalem, and that only for ten months.)
            Does Obama intend to impose a such land redistribution arrangement on the Israelis?
            I doubt he plans to 'impose' any land distribution arrangement on Israelis or Palestinians, rather he plans to mediate negotiations between them. He will likely be upset with actions that make those negotiations more difficult as this action did/does. I have no problem with him signaling that upset, YMMV.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110545
            Patrick Glenn I was unsure whether the area in which the controversial project is located is also within the overall areas for which the Obama administration had tried to get a moratorium some months ago. Either way, it is a radical position, I think, to call for such a moratorium. It would be like if Chavez and a majority of the U.N. members called for a development moratorium in areas along our border with Mexico, in cities like San Diego, Brownsville TX, or so forth. It's absurd for the Obama administration to "request" such a thing of any country, but especially one of our strongest allies. Besids, your point underscores that the whole ordeal was contrived. If the Obama administration "requests" a moratorium for EJ and Israel says "no thank you," how can they be surprised when Israelis continue to develop parts of EJ (ie. continue to live life within their own city)? Is it logically consistent that they'd be shocked the Israelis would do what they said they were going to keep doing, assuming the good faith and honesty of the Obama administration?
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110556
            Jeb42
            Either way, it is a radical position, I think, to call for such a moratorium. It would be like if Chavez and a majority of the U.N. members called for a development moratorium in areas along our border with Mexico, in cities like San Diego, Brownsville TX, or so forth.
            If we in an active dispute with Mexico about who legitimately controlled them, the international community including the UN did not recognize our sovereignty over those areas, Chavez was seen as a potential fair moderator and Venezuela was the country most likely to bring both parties to the table then it would be reasonable for Chavez to request for no American only settlements in those areas until after negotiations and to be upset if we ignored that request.
            If the Obama administration "requests" a moratorium for EJ and Israel says "no thank you," how can they be surprised when Israelis continue to develop parts of EJ
            The surprise was at the insulting timing of the announcement. The Netanyahu administration continuing to build in EJ when Obama (and many many others) think that it will negatively impact coming peace negotiations explains the rest of the upset. In short Obama requests a moratorium on building Jewish only settlements until after negotiations, Netanyahu says yes to only part of that request, Netanyahu's administration announces continued building in EJ at a time insulting to the Obama administration, the Obama administration reacts negatively.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110547
            Patrick Glenn Something like a temporary development "hold" could very easily have a way of becoming an entrenched obstacle lasting well into the future, given the nature of that conflict and the liklihood of lengthy negotiations (especially given the bad faith on the Palestinian side). It was an ABSURD "request" that no self-respecting people would ever agree to. Your characterization of Obama merely "signaling" his displeasure, etc., undersells the effectiveness and potential damage that can be done to vulnerable nations like Israel through U.S. diplomatic maneuveurs. In diplomatic terms, given Israel's status as an ally, the Obama administration's recent treatment of Israel was agressively hostile. You might agree with it, but let's not pretend that Obama was merely expressing to Israel his collegial disagreement with their policies.
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110559
            Jeb42
            It was an ABSURD "request" that no self-respecting people would ever agree to.
            Previous Israeli administrations have disagreed with your characterization.
            Your characterization of Obama merely "signaling" his displeasure, etc., undersells the effectiveness and potential damage that can be done to vulnerable nations like Israel through U.S. diplomatic maneuveurs.
            What other actual damage has Israel suffered due to the Obama administration's actions?
            (especially given the bad faith on the Palestinian side)
            Both sides have shown plenty of bad faith over the years.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110561
            Patrick Glenn Let me get back to you on these two points. First, my understanding is that the willingness to give up those parts of EJ that are under question is a very minority position among Israelis, that even Kadima is strongly opposed to that now. Sure, the hard left in Israel would probably say Kadima is a "right wing" party just like hard leftists here think Obama is a Clintonite center-right politician. I'm not well versed on Israeli history, but the left was once much stronger, so perhaps you're refercing a former leftist administration. But now most Israelis have concluded that surrender in EJ would be suicidal. Secondly: for potential "damages," let's see how it plays out in coming years. The Obama administration's hardline approach might have ramifications that are compounded over time. The standard is not only subsequent damages, but also immediate hostile actions. To properly lay out the examples for why the Obama administration's recent diplomatic treatment of Israel might be described as hostile, would require me to do a little legwork, though.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110562
            Patrick Glenn Let me get back to you on these two points. First, my understanding is that the willingness to give up those parts of EJ that are under question is a very minority position among Israelis, that even Kadima is strongly opposed to that now. Sure, the hard left in Israel would probably say Kadima is a "right wing" party just like hard leftists here think Obama is a Clintonite center-right politician. I'm not well versed on Israeli history, but the left was once much stronger, so perhaps you're refercing a former leftist administration. But now most Israelis have concluded that surrender in EJ would be suicidal. Secondly: for potential "damages," let's see how it plays out in coming years. The Obama administration's hardline approach might have ramifications that are compounded over time. The standard is not only subsequent damages, but also immediate hostile actions. To properly lay out the examples for why the Obama administration's recent diplomatic treatment of Israel might be described as hostile, would require me to do a little legwork, though.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110505
            Patrick Glenn What makes you think I would look at HW Bush as a model for how presidents should act on a wide variety of policy matters? Glick was using the word "overthrow" rhetorically, as reflected in the rest of her analysis. As far as who is responsible for that timing, I'm not privy to all the inside facts. Your explanation (Shas) seems quite reasonable, especially on its "face," but Glick and others believe that strategically-motivated leaks and moles have been real issues in the past, and who am I to deny those possibilities? Anyway, few people think that Netanyahu was at all instrumental in the timing, yet you still insist on characterizing it as the Netanyahu administration deliberately trying to insult the Obama admin. When Biden unleashes one of his routine gaffes, apparently Obama himself is intends for those to be aired?
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110516
            Jeb42
            What makes you think I would look at HW Bush as a model
            Just pointing out that this current US stance is not out of historical norms.
            Glick was using the word "overthrow" rhetorically, as reflected in the rest of her analysis.
            Was she also using "Obama's expressed desire" rhetorically?
            yet you still insist on characterizing it as the Netanyahu administration deliberately trying to insult the Obama admin
            Eli Yishai is undeniably a member of Netanyahu's administration. More importantly he heads one of the three pillars of Netanyahu's right wing coalition (Shas). Yishai either deliberately insulted Biden and by extension the Obama administration or he is an idiot. I have no idea whether Netanyahu new beforehand or not and I don't think I have opined one way or another.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110537
            Patrick Glenn Glick was not suggesting that Obama would "overthrow" the Netanyahu government at the point of a gun. She did argue, if I remember correctly, that it was the expressed desire of the Obama administration to effect "regime change" in Israel by undermining Netanyahu's domestic political position. You were right to suggest that she was making a relatively unsupported assumption (at least in terms of any available "hard" evidence trail), but without any of us knowing Obama's real purposes, motivations, etc., I'd still inclined to put my money on Glick's horse.
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110543
            Jeb42
            She did argue, if I remember correctly, that it was the expressed desire of the Obama administration to effect "regime change" in Israel by undermining Netanyahu's domestic political position.
            again she said, and I quote,
            Obama's expressed desire to overthrow the democratically elected government of Israel stands in contrast to his refusal to acknowledge the basic illegitimacy of the Iranian regime he seeks to appease.
            Yet no one has pointed to anything Obama has said the expressed a desire to overthrow the government of Israel or to initiate any sort of regime change in Israel. There is not one bit of support for the first assertion and to support the second assertion requires some byzantine logic.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110549
            Patrick Glenn Come on, Jeb, you know she was using "overthrow" in a figurative sense, as follows from the rest of her article. She did not mean what we should be trying to do to the Iranian government . . .
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110557
            Jeb42 What has Obama said that "expressed a desire to" overthrow (even in a figurative sense) the Netanyahu government? Give me any quote from Obama that expressed the desire she claims he expressed. It simply does not exist. Glick made it up.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110560
            Patrick Glenn Okay, now I get it, I should have thought about this way before. The word "expressed" is frequently (primarily) used as a synonym for stated (put into words), but it also can mean to manifest something. You're right, I'm not sure that Obama administration officials said much to the media, but their diplomatic actions toward Israel "spoke" louder than words.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110506
            Patrick Glenn You also suggest that Glick is not credible because, in addition to some conspiracy theorizing, she uses some extreme language (regime change, overthrow) without being to able to back it up with available facts (an argument which has some merits, even if her analysis was intended to be speculative). But then you go in the exact opposite direction by suggesting that Obama merely "supports political opponent in the upcoming election." Big difference between rooting for the Israeli political process to change direction in the future, while constructively working with the current administration, and team Obama meddling in Israeli political affairs while throwing a public tantrum. A more "credible" response from your side: trying to weaken the domestic political support for one particular, temporary coalition within a stable parliamentary system, so that it might be replaced by another coalition under the same system should not be characterized as an attempt at "regime change," which is usually seen as involving systemic changes, and possibly forcible overthrow. Then, I would have agreed in the literal sense, but not in the figurative sense.
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110517
            Jeb42
            But then you go in the exact opposite direction by suggesting that Obama merely "supports political opponent in the upcoming election." Big difference between rooting for the Israeli political process to change direction in the future, while constructively working with the current administration, and team Obama meddling in Israeli political affairs while throwing a public tantrum.
            The thing is that there is no credible evidence of meddling in Israeli public affairs, while there is evidence that he would like to have Livni as part of a coalition government. Public tantrum is your subjective interpretation and not one that I share nor is it shared by most in the international political community.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110539
            Patrick Glenn See what I wrote above about Glick, but I also think it's a question of whether we're talking about direct or indirect meddling. I have no reason to believe that the Obama administration has, for example, put spooks into Israel to meddle with their internal affairs. I doubt that possibility and, if it were happening, we'd probably never know about it. On the other hand, it is quite reasonable to interpret that one of the main reasons that the Obama administration did such a full court press on the contrived housing development "controversy" was that they were using it as a pretext to try to undermine Netanyahu's domestic position - i.e. indirect "meddling." Others have spent some effort exploring this interpretation, so I won't flesh it out here. On the indirect meddling side, the unlikely, but possible "cloak & dagger" stuff might have involved some degree of premeditation, coordination. For example, maybe the Obama administration and the Israeli left both coincidentally planned ahead of time to use the announcement as a pretext. "If/when the announcement comes out, let's make a mountain out of a mole hill."
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110544
            Jeb42 Occam's razor should apply I think my explanations are considerably more parsimonious.
            it is quite reasonable to interpret that one of the main reasons that the Obama administration did such a full court press on the contrived housing development "controversy" was that they were using it as a pretext to try to undermine Netanyahu's domestic position
            He disagrees with Netanyahu and his coalition's position regarding current Jewish only settlements in the disputed territories prior to peace negotiations. He would like a shift in Israeli public opinion and policy on that front and has spoken on that point directly with Netanyahu and in other statements. So yes he wants to 'undermine' Netanyahu's government on that front. I see no problem with that, do you?
            maybe the Obama administration and the Israeli left both coincidentally planned ahead of time to use the announcement as a pretext. "If/when the announcement comes out, let's make a mountain out of a mole hill."
            Again Occam's razor should prevail. The timing of the announcement was determined by a hard right member of Netanyahu's administration, so hypothesizing that the left is somehow responsible does not pass the sniff test. Continuing it only weakens your other arguments.
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110546
            Jeb42 Now stepping outside what I think really happened into a mirror of what Glick asserted. Scenario 1: It is quite possible that Netanyahu coordinated with Yeshai, using him as a cat's paw to test Obama's resolve*. Netanyahu is then left open to pursue further if Obama backs down or can claim ignorance if the attempt fails. The attempt backfired and Netanyahu was thrown back on his heals. It all boils down to political brinksmanship on the part of the Israeli hard right and it was an abject failure for which they had to pay a price. I have provided every bit as much evidence as Glick and I find my scenario far more plausible. Onto what I actually think: Yeshai was playing to his hard right domestic audience and cared little about what effect it might have outside of that. * like Medvedev attempted w/ missile defense a short while back.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110548
            Patrick Glenn Your scenario 1 is plausible, but not necessarily more plausible than what Glick suggests. It's another possibility that would have to be considered in the field of possibilities, in the absence of the necessary inside info. Your "what I actually think" scenario does approximate an Occam's Razor explanation, but so does the explanation that the Obama administration overreacted (either purposely or otherwise) to a contrived controversy. But I don't think your rhetoric about Netanyahu's administration "paying a price" (for what you characterize as a misstep) squares with your characterization of Obama as merely trying to promote good policy, not being the instigator, etc. Why should Netanyahu and the Israeli people have to "pay a price"? Given their vulnerabilities, the price could be very grave, indeed. When we speeak of our adversaries having to "pay a price," that's hostile language. Are we supposed to be on a hostile footing with Israel? Let me ask you: Do you esteem either side - Israeli or Palestinian - in higher regard (trustworthiness, cultural sympatico with free peoples, etc.)?
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110558
            Jeb42
            It's another possibility that would have to be considered in the field of possibilities
            Yet you seem to have taken Netanyahu at his word without hypothesizing inappropriate motives and are far less generous when it comes to your reaction to Obama.
            Your "what I actually think" scenario does approximate an Occam's Razor explanation, but so does the explanation that the Obama administration overreacted (either purposely or otherwise) to a contrived controversy.
            I don't see the Obama administration's response as an overreaction, nor do I see the controversy as contrived.
            Why should Netanyahu and the Israeli people have to "pay a price"?
            The price paid was enduring some harsh words. It was a price paid by Netanyahu and Yeshai and that is pretty much it. There have been no consequences beyond a bit of stern rhetoric.
            Do you esteem either side - Israeli or Palestinian
            The Israeli's are the better of two bad players in this conflict.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110563
            Patrick Glenn By crediting your scenario as plausible, I was suggesting that I wouldn't necessarily take Netanyahu at his word - he's a politician - although I do generally see him as being trustworthy, good character. Really, though, my giving less slack to Obama is largely because his (as I see it) relatively hostile recent diplomatic approach toward Isreal stems from a policy that could be disastrous. I trust Netanyahu to pursue wiser policies than Obama on the relevant issues. I know you don't see the Obama adminstration's response as an overreaction, but it fits the Occam's razor principle: a straightforward, uncomplicated explanation that is quite consistent with run-of-the-mill human reactions. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of pettiness and contrivances playing a major role in public affairs. You're veering close to moral equivalence on the Isreali/Palestinian conflict. Human beings are flawed creatures, so there is bound to be bad actions and bad faith from both sides. But on the bad actor/faith scale (100 being worst), the Israeli side ranks about a 20 and the Palestinian side ranks about a 95.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110507
            Patrick Glenn Finally, you really spun Obama's popularity among Israelis on two counts. First, you cherry pick the Haaretz poll (left-wing source). The overall polling data from various sources is very unfavorable for Obama. Second, you played the same trick that others have with the Haaretz data, which themselves were needed extra spin to make Obama sound more popular than he really is. Using that poll, 72 percent of Israelis think that Obama is either hostile or "businesslike" (a better interpretation of the word "inyani") toward Israeli, and that's coming from a very leftist publication!
          • Posted by Jeb42
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110518
            Jeb42 Inyani can also be translated as even or fair-handed. The only other polling I have seen comes from a right wing publication and so I would guess that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In that one 30% saw him as even handed and 46% or so as pro-Palestinian as opposed to 8% or so seeing his as pro-Israel. I would argue that this is actually good news for any coming peace process. If the process is to have any chance of success then Obama must be seen as even-handed.
        • Posted by Patrick Glenn
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110483
          Patrick Glenn I wasn't the one using the "like" or "dislike" language, just responding to what others had written. The Reagan-era situation described above involved different circumstances than the recent events - i.e. not all diplomatic disagreements are rooted in attempts to change regimes. I was farily young, then, but I have always been a very ardent supporter of Israel. I don't agree, now, in retrospect, with Reagan's approach in that case, but we know that things turned for the better. I'm not sure that it will the case under the Obama administration.
    • Posted by Brian
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110462
      Brian Likud and other right-wing parties managed to get enough support from the Israeli public to create an administration. Just like Bush managed to get enough support in the US to get elected. You can say you respect the people but don't like the administration, sure, but at the same time you have to recognize when the administration is representing the people.
      • Posted by Evil
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110474
        Evil By accepting US support, Israel also accepts that it has to consider how it acts, now that the US is associated with it. The US is currently spending money and risking soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it cannot afford Israel acting unnecessarily aggressive or selfish with regards to Palestine without saying anything. The US does not have to condone or stay silent if an Israeli leader wants to boost his image by blatantly refusing to stop the progressive annexation of Jerusalem, pushing a personal agenda on a legally disputable area and its inhabitants. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/04/debate-on-...
        • Posted by Brian
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110479
          Brian Sure, but I still don't see how its a personal agenda. When all of those Israeli voters supported Likud they knew what they were getting. Likud has insisted that any peace agreement will have Jerusalem as part of Israel, that its not open for negotiation, and settlements built in Jerusalem are within their right. But people who disagree to make this not about the Israeli voters who support Likud but a few political actors, which I don't think is honest.
        • Posted by Interested
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110523
          Interested are you aware of the number of countries that receive US support? And the percentage of those nations that care little of US desires? Should we place the same responsibility measures to those nations as well?
  2. Posted by Evil
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110473
    Evil "Do you support the Obama administration's efforts to destablize the Netanyahu administration - i.e, regime change?" I support making life difficult for any belligerent, "l'etat c'est moi" kind of ruler who tries to push an extreme agenda that harms not only the state he rules but neighboring people. Besides, Netanyahu actively tried to waggle the new decision of settlements in the Obama administration's face, just to test whether the US was deferent enough to put up with it. Ever heard of "Friends don't let friends drive drunk?" Well, Obama is as reliable a friend of Israel as the last president, he just won't kow-tow to Krauthammer or TNR. "I ask because you jumped over the question of whether the administration is exhibiting its "dislike" of the Israeli government (thereby tacitly agreeing with this notion), by suggesting that Likud does not equal the "Jewish nation-state." "' I have no idea whether they actually have anything against Likud, but I will say that they are resisting the Likud's vision of the future, and that this is not against the legitimate interests of Israel. "And if so, does that mean that Obama "likes" the Iranian regime better?" Probably not - the powers that be there are a bigger threat towards the people in and outside of the nation. I think Obama would support any decision that is a result of a legitimate defensive agenda any country could draw up if faced with Israel - he just isn't willing to try and grandstand or pretend any Israeli government is infallible. "Also, do you think it's proper for the Obama administration to meddle in the internal political affairs of one our strongest allies?" Do you think it is proper of the Israeli government to exploit the good faith of its biggest ally? Opposing settlements are not meddling, and trying to deal with Iran viz. the US-Iran relationship is not going over the head of Israel.
    • Posted by Patrick Glenn
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110481
      Patrick Glenn Even the Obama administration admitted that Netanyahu had nothing to do with the timing of the announcement, which btw involved a routine planning approval step for a development project within a part of Jerusalem that is well understood to be part of Israel under ANY potential agreement. If anything, the timing of the announcement was an effort by Netanyahu's domestic political opponents to weaken his position. Israel is a strong, reliable ally, not a vassal of the U.S. We get as much, if not more, benefit from the relationship than does Israel. I've seen very little evidence that Obama is a "friend" to Israel and the Israeli people reject that notion by a very wide margin.
      • Posted by Evil
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110508
        Evil That could be because your and the Israelis' definition of "friend" in this context is not really encyclopedic.
  3. Posted by rudi
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #110477
    rudi We should only worry about Israelis interest and not about US interests or US blood. I wonder what everyones favorite General had to say: http://middleeast.about.com/b/2010/03/14/petraeus... Petraeus: Israel's Intransigence Could Cost American Lives
    • Posted by Interested
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110499
      Interested are you meaning the left's political Betraeus type of friend Rudi? or the left's political convenient friend of the day?