Ted Belham
This is bullshit
I met and interviewed Javedanvar, a leftist Iranian Jew two years ago and we had strong disagreements. I reported on the Petraeus matter yesterday in Blame the Jews .
The proposition put forward by Petraeus is that continued expansion is putting American lives at stake. I for one can’t see the connection but even if it were true, the least I would expect from an ally is that it should hang tough rather than sacrifice Israel’s national interest. How many times did American actions cost Israeli lives. Many.
Javendar says “Regional players such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE are not going to take America’s promises to stand up to Iran seriously when Obama cannot even convince his best friend in the region to assist him.” If ever there was a non-sequitor, this is one. Everyone knows that Israel is ready to assist in attacking Iran even going it alone. So the ability for Obama to force Israel to stop building has nothing to do with Iran.
Israel must help US tackle Iran
Israeli settlement-building is undermining the security of US forces, limiting its ability to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat
Meir Javedanfar, Guardian.co.uk,
For some in Israel, the issues of Jewish settlements and Iran’s nuclear programme are not connected. But for the United States, they are becoming more and more intertwined.
The factor that links them together is American concerns about casualties in the region.
According to Mark Perry writing in Foreign Policy, one of the main parties in Washington calling for Barack Obama to put his foot down against Israel’s settlement expansion, even before Vice-president Joe Biden’s recent call, has been General David Petraeus. In the Pentagon’s view, the Obama administration’s inability to stop the expansion of settlements is eroding America’s military posture in the Middle East. Such erosion could embolden Muslim extremists to increase their attacks on US forces in the region.
Petraeus wanted to confront the settlements by getting the US government to include the Palestinian issue under his command in Centcom. This was denied. Obama preferred to let George Mitchell and Biden handle it.
But when Biden heard Israel’s recent announcement of plans to expand housing in East Jerusalem, he decided to be frank. He openly told Israel’s prime minister: “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
American concern about the settlements issue having an impact on the security of its forces could have two major impacts on Israel’s Iran policy.
One is that due to this increasing concern for the security of its soldiers, and the need to increase its credibility in the region, the US may place the settlement issue as part of its strategy to isolate Iran.
Such a move would not be without its own logic. The US needs to build a regional coalition against Iran. Regional players such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE are not going to take America’s promises to stand up to Iran seriously when Obama cannot even convince his best friend in the region to assist him. In order to have the credibility to persuade such countries to isolate Iran both politically and economically, the US could be pressured to bring Binyamin Netanyahu’s settlement policies into line.
The same goes for plans to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Any such attack runs the risk of Iranian retaliation, through its proxies or even directly against US forces in the region. In order to reduce Iran’s influence prior to such an attack, the US may again need to improve its position by asking Israel and the Palestinians to push forward with the peace process.
As time goes by, failure to do so will become less and less of an option for Washington. Or put another way, it is unlikely that the US will risk the lives of its troops even before an attack, through Israel’s provocative gestures against Palestinians, and then to endanger them even more, by allowing an Israeli attack against Iran.
For now, the recent developments have shown that it will almost be impossible for Israel to go it alone against Iran, without American permission or participation. In fact, the recent US reaction to the settlements may have been designed to send this very message to Jerusalem: don’t take any unilateral action that could harm us.
This will place Netanyahu in a bind. On the one hand, he will have his coalition partners to deal with. On the other, he can’t ignore the Iranian nuclear threat. Far-right parties such as Yisrael Beitenu will be wanting Israel to build more in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, simply because they don’t see such areas as occupied lands. As Israel’s deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon (who belongs to Yisrael Beitenu) put it: “There is this perception that Israel is occupying stolen land and that the Palestinians are the only party with national, legal and historic rights to it. Not only is this morally and factually incorrect, but the more this narrative is being accepted, the less likely the Palestinians feel the need to come to the negotiating table.”
In other words, the way he sees it, in order to encourage Palestinians to return to the negotiation table, they have to be persuaded that the land occupied by Israel after 1967 is, in fact, not entirely theirs. Therefore by convincing them that they are entitled to less, they could actually be encouraged more to come forward and negotiate.
This warped sense of reality is a strong indication of the task ahead for Netanyahu.
The recent report in the Washington Post that Iran tried to buy nuclear bombs from Pakistan in the late 1980s is another reminder of the urgency and danger posed by the Iranian nuclear programme. Israel needs to help Obama put a stop to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s nuclear dreams. Putting an end to the construction of settlements is a fair and powerful way to help Obama help Israel.
Comments on Israpundit:
The US (i.e. “Obamanation”) does not need help from Israel nor anyone else in “tackling Iran”; because the US has no intention of tackling Iran — The US is hurriedly running off the field and leaving all its Middle Eastern team-mates, Jew and Arab alike, to take whatever Iran throws at them.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — March 16, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
You know, Oat, aside from your pathological anti-Semitism you’ve got a lot on the ball, which falls into the category of:
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Bland other than state the obvious; what else you got?
Comment by yamit82 — March 16, 2010 @ 5:35 pm
The White House
http://lemonlimemoon.blogspot.com/
Binyamin Netanyahu
Somewhere in Israel.
Dear Benny,
You may have noticed headlines in American news today that we still consider you a strategic ally and to a point this is true but mainly you serve us as a strategic whipping boy.
Now don’t get your yarmulka in a twist over this. I mean it in the best possible way and it’s all between friends. We can talk plainly right? You serve a valuable function by allowing us to take all of our feelings of , shall we say, distaste for middle eastern 5th rate terror nations and take them out on you. I mean, come on boy, do you think we could get away with these demands in Riyad or something like that?
In all honesty you should not feel badly about this. We are bigger than you. We have more money than you and so it is your duty to suck up to us and if that means serving a lowly purpose on the international food chain then that is what you should do. Consider it being a martyr.
Another headline today says that we do not want you to build anymore houses in East Jerusalem. This is also true.You see, we cannot make the A-rabs angry at us. They have come here now too and well, we don’t want to handle any upsets that might occur due to catering to your childish whims about owning homes in Jerusalem.
Now, we know it’s been a Jewish capital forever and a day, but come on guys, when you think of the inconvenience it might cause us here in Washington can’t your better instincts and sense of fair play take over? Exactly how much emotional blackmail does it take to get you to do our bidding? Just funning with ya Ben. Don’t get all wee-wee’ed up over it.
Look , we here in America have some real serious problems going on right now. Our money’s running out. We regulated and damaged insurance so much that health care needs our help again.
Look at these headlines and weep for us Israel:
The Hamptons have the worst beach erosion in 20 years says one headline. Our cocaine users are making global warming worse says another. Google has a huge decision to make: whether to shut down, sort of, kind of , China’s internet, or something like that. Brad and Angelina had a spat. I mean you just can’t make stuff like this up Ben.
So, don’t whine to us about your petty home building problems in Jerusalem. It’s only real estate Ben… hellooooo! Hey, I just thought of something funny. You are the only nation on earth that can’t name your own capital city. In fact you are the only nation on earth everyone else meddles in to such an extent. Ha! Doesn’t that make you feel special in a kind of weird way? So play ball Israel. Let your enemies inside, let them have half your capital , let them claim your holy sites and trash them. For Pete sake Ben, turn the other cheek once in a doggone while.
Get a life. I mean seriously.We would do it if we were you.I have real serious stuff going on over here and don’t have time to piddle around with your stupid whining. Not that I am trying to talk down to you or anything.
Just saying…
As always,
Barack Obama.
Comment by yamit82 — March 16, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
American demands on Israel
Haaretz reports that Israel has not only received a tongue lashing from Secretary Clinton delivered to Ambassador Michael Oren, but has also received four peremptory demands:
1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden’s visit. The Americans seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to look into the issue.
2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo.
3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.
4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians, even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict’s core issues - borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements.
American demands on the Palestinians
1.
2.
3.
4.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
The preceding is what’s known by liberals as “The Even-Handed Approach”.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 16, 2010 @ 6:13 pm
Israel needs a feisty pro-Israel campaign in America from its pro-Israel base. Israel can drum up more public support than the administration can, but right now support is mostly sentiment; it needs to become a major political issue and pushed to the front. Where are our leaders who are pro-Israel? They should be all over this. Even from a purely political perspective Obama’s political foes could profit greatly from this right now if they had the sense to realize it. If the status of Israel becomes a center stage issue, negative public opinion will drift over to hurt Obama’s domestic agenda. If high profile figures and politicians would stand up to Obama to help a friend, and Israel is a friend, it would help them immensely in many ways they don’t seem to realize.
Comment by RandyTexas — March 16, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
American lives are already at stake. They would kill every Jew and every American today if they could. At most, expansion is merely bringing up to the surface hatred that is already there. Even if there were no expansion, hostility would remain beneath building up pressure like a volcano. It’s better this way; the plume of smoke gives you a glimpse of reality. If you keep appeasing, you fool only yourself by hiding the truth until you can’t any longer. That’s when you have a catastrophe. Are we there yet?
Comment by RandyTexas — March 16, 2010 @ 7:02 pm