Join Date: Aug 2004
Local Time: 09:23 PM
Originally posted by MumblingBono
Israel will hit them first, setting back or ruining their development. This will happen during Bush's remaining term.
There are those among the neocons, both Jewish and gentile, who might like that, and they are very influential, but it would be a mistake to automatically attribute their views to the entire Israeli government, let alone the entire Israeli public.
Doubts whether Bush is good for Israel
By Jim Lobe
Asia Times/InterPress, Aug. 31
WASHINGTON - A growing debate within Israel over whether US President George W. Bush's Middle East policies really serve the interests of the Jewish state has spread to Washington, where influential voices within the US Jewish community are questioning the administration's hardline positions in the region.
Coming in the wake of the month-long war between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah, during which Washington provided virtually unconditional support and encouragement to Israel, the debate has focused initially on the wisdom of Bush's efforts to isolate, rather than engage, Syria, the indispensable link in the military supply chain between Iran and the Shi'ite militia. But the debate over Syria policy may mark the launch of a broader challenge among Israel's supporters in the US to the Bush administration's reliance on unilateralism, military power and ''regime change'' in the Middle East, whose most fervent champions have been neo-conservatives and the right-wing leadership of the so-called "Israel lobby".
"Bush has been convinced by self-appointed spokesmen for Israel and the Jewish community that endless war is in Israel's interest," asserted the lead editorial in the United States' most important Jewish newspaper, the Forward, immediately after the ceasefire took effect. "[Bush] needs to hear in no uncertain terms that Israel is ready for dialogue, that the alternative--endless jihad--is unthinkable," declared the paper, which argued for Israel's participation in a regional dialogue with its Arab neighbors, including Syria, for a comprehensive peace settlement.
While such a regional negotiation is unlikely to be accepted either by Washington or by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the short term, the question of engaging Syria is rapidly moving up the agenda both in Israel, where several cabinet ministers have endorsed the idea, and in Washington. In Washington, the traditional foreign-policy elite--from Republican realists such as former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage to Democratic internationalists such as former secretaries of state Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright--have publicly criticized Bush for rejecting talks with Damascus, at the very least to probe its willingness to rein in Hezbollah, if not loosen its alliance with Iran, during the past month's fighting. The most direct challenge surfaced on Tuesday, when the Zionist group Americans for Peace Now sent a letter to President Bush calling on him to clarify whether his administration opposes renewed peace negotiations between Israel and Syria. "Unfortunately, many in Israel and the US believe that your administration is standing in the way of renewed Israel-Syria contacts," the letter, which also called on Bush to "reject the thinking of those who view the Syrian regime as irredeemable," stated. "We urge you to clarify, publicly and expeditiously, that this is not the case."
While the administration is likely to dodge the question, its commitment to isolating Syria, particularly since the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, has never been in doubt. Indeed, in the opening days of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, the White House not only reportedly rebuffed an appeal by Olmert himself for Washington to quietly approach Damascus about pressing Hezbollah to release two Israeli soldiers whose capture touched off the crisis, but also urged the Israeli prime minister, according to one account in the Jerusalem Post, to attack Syria directly: "In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, [Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot] Abrams indicated that Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria."
While Abrams was discreetly urging Israel to expand the war to Syria, his neo-conservative allies, some of whom, such as former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle and former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, are regarded as close to Vice President Dick Cheney, were more explicit, to the extent even of expressing disappointment over Israel's lack of aggressiveness or success in "getting the job done". Cheney's own Middle East advisers, John Hannah and David Wurmser, have long favored "regime change" in Damascus and, according to the New York Times, argued forcefully--and successfully, with help from Abrams and pressure from the Israel lobby's leadership--against efforts by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to persuade Bush to open a channel to Syria in an effort to stop the recent fighting.
But Bush's adamant refusal to engage Damascus is precisely what has raised doubts in Israel about whether his policies are in the long-term or even in the immediate interests of the Jewish state. Since the ceasefire, a growing number of former and current senior Israeli officials, including Olmert's defense, interior and foreign ministers, have called for talks with Damascus. And, while Olmert himself has rejected the idea for now, he has also abandoned his previous pre-condition for such talks--that Washington remove Syria from its terrorism list. Of the officials, the two most important are both former Likud Party members--Interior Minister Avi Dichter, the former head of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency, and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who reportedly enjoys a strong relationship with Rice and has appointed her former chief of staff, Yaakov Dayan, to explore possible ways to engage Syria.
Meanwhile, other prominent Israelis are asking even more basic questions about the regional strategy pursued by Bush and its consequences for Israel. In a column published by Ha'aretz, former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argued that, in the aftermath of the Lebanon war, which, in his view, had proved "the limits of [Israeli] power", a peace accord with Syria and the Palestinians had become "essential" for Israel, particularly in light of "the worrisome decline of the status of Israel's ally in this part of the world and beyond... US deterrence, and respect for the superpower, have been eroded unrecognizably...An exclusive pax Americana in the Middle East is no longer possible because not only is the US not an inspiration today, it does not instill fear."
Indeed, the widespread perception that Washington's influence in the region has fallen sharply as a result of both the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's stubborn refusal to engage its foes diplomatically has raised new questions about whether Bush and his neo-conservative advisers have actually made Israel less rather than more secure. "The Bush administration at first avoided and then was unable to deliver the diplomatic agility that was called for, and that is bad news for Israel," wrote former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy,who currently directs the NAF's and Century Foundation's Middle East initiative, in this week's Forward. "The United States had no direct channels or leverage with key actors, and could not commit troops to any ceasefire-implementation force...The idea that current American policy advances Israeli security and national interests...[is becoming] discredited--something that is now openly aired in the Israeli media, and raised, albeit in more discreet circles, by Israeli cabinet ministers. Iran has been emboldened and regionally strengthened, the growing Israeli debate on public dialogue with Syria is cut short by 'Washington will say no' reminders, and the much-needed international encouragement for renewing a political process with the Palestinians to replace the unappealing options of unilateralism and stagnation lacks American leadership."
While Zionist ambivalence towards the neocon agenda has been shaping up for awhile now, it has reached a high-water mark in recent weeks, both because of Israeli public anger over how the war in Lebanon was conducted--a majority now want an independent commission established to probe the many missteps, according to an Israel Radio poll released yesterday--and because some of the scathing attacks on Israel's "weakling" conduct penned by prominent American neocons in the last few weeks, which have outraged many moderate Zionists in both Israel and the US:
nationally distributed columnist Charles Krauthammer, Aug. 4:
"Israel's leaders do not seem to understand how ruinous a military failure in Lebanon would be to its relationship with America, Israel's most vital lifeline. For decades there has been a debate in the U.S. over Israel's strategic value. At critical moments in the past, Israel has indeed shown its value...But that was decades ago. The question, as always, is: What have you done for me lately? There is fierce debate now in the U.S. about whether in the post-9/11 world Israel is a net asset or liability. Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on July 12 provided Israel the extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate its utility by making a major contribution to America's war on terror...America wants, America needs, a decisive Hezbollah defeat. Unlike many of the other terror groups in the Middle East, Hezbollah is a serious enemy of the United States...With al-Qaida in decline, Iran is on the march. It is intervening through proxies throughout the Arab world--Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq--to subvert modernizing, Western-oriented Arab governments and bring those territories under Iranian hegemony. Its nuclear ambitions would secure those advances, give it an overwhelming preponderance of power over the Arabs and an absolute deterrent against serious counteractions by the United States, Israel or any other rival. The moderate pro-Western Arabs understand this very clearly. Which is why Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan immediately came out against Hezbollah and privately urged the U.S. to let Israel take down Hezbollah...Hence Israel's rare opportunity to demonstrate what it can do for its great American patron.
The U.S. has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed...Foolishly relying on air power alone, [Olmert] denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war Cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence. His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation, but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence--and the relationship it reinforces--is as important to Israel's survival as its own army."
Meyrav Wurmser, cofounder of the "Middle East Research Institute", writing in the National Review:
"The bottom line is that Israel's gripe is not with Lebanon; it [is] with Syria and Iran...Given the explosive nature of the situation, Israel ought not let its adversaries define the battleground. Rather, it ought to carry the battle to them."
Heritage Foundation spokesman Ari Cohen, addressing a correspondent for the Forward:
"Let's face it: Nobody likes a pushover; nobody likes a weakling...This is something Olmert and [Defense Minister Amir] Peretz have to think about: how Israel is perceived not only in Europe and the Arab world, but also in the United States."
Originally posted by trevster2k
Iran has played its cards perfectly.
Yes it has, which ought to put to rest any tendencies to dismiss Ahmadinajad as a "nutjob."