Obama's Big Mideast Push
President Barack Obama's long awaited big push to resolve the Mideast's festering problems is on.
Some of the administration's biggest guns have been sent to the Mideast in an all-out effort to get America's squabbling allies and clients to accept a comprehensive regional peace deal whose centerpiece is creation of a Palestinian mini-state on lands now occupied by Israel.
The only notable absence from the American diplomatic armada was, interestingly, Hillary Clinton, who was left at home to make nice to a visiting Chinese delegation.
The White House's big push in the Mideast is being driven in good part by the growing danger of an Israeli attack on Iran and/or Lebanon that has Washington far more concerned than it publicly admits.
Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, openly warned Iran of possible military action if Tehran does not cease its nuclear program -- which UN inspectors and US intelligence still says is non-military. His is the latest of a series of warlike threats from Israel against Iran. Israeli officials keep saying they won't even hear about the Palestinian issue until the US disarms Iran.
Some American experts even worry Israel might use tactical nuclear weapons against deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities. Such an attack would produce a cataclysm that would also contaminate Iraq, the Gulf, the oil fields of the Arabian Peninsula, Afghanistan and all the US military personnel in the region.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has emerged as the Obama administration's foreign policy strongman, eclipsing Hillary Clinton. His preeminence confirms that the Pentagon, not State Department, continues to spearhead foreign policy, as was the case during the Bush years.
Gates stood next to Barak as the Israeli minister issued his threats, clearly backing Israel's threats. Gates warned Iran it had until September to begin talks on dismantling its nuclear energy program -- or else.
Wasn't Barack Obama supposed to be the "peace president?"
Interestingly, the US has lived for over half a century under the threat of Soviet/Russian nuclear attack, and continues to do so under a strategy known as mutually assure destruction (MAD).
President Dwight Eisenhower refused demands from Republican hardliners that he use America's nuclear forces to destroy the Soviet Union's infant nuclear forces. The US policy remained that of no first strikes even after Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev threatened, "We will bury you!"
But Washington seems to support Israel's insistence that it cannot live under the possible future threat of Iranian nuclear weapons -- if ever developed -- even though Israel has now deployed an indestructible nuclear triad of land, air and sea-launched nuclear weapons and an effective, layered anti-missile system that is better than anything the US currently fields.
In any event, the intensifying power struggle within Iran's bitterly feuding leadership will make any nuclear talks with the Western powers extremely difficult and uncertain. Possession of nuclear weapons has become an issue of national pride and modernity for all Iranians.
In an unprecedented act by an Israeli leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly defied President Obama's request that Israel cease building or expanding settlements on the West Bank and the Golan.
While the US peace offensive was in full swing, Israeli police began evicting Palestinians from their Jerusalem homes. No sooner had the weeping Palestinians been evicted from their homes than militant Jewish settlers, many from the United States, moved in. The US, EU, and UN made feeble protests that were ignored by Israel.
Netanyahu's defiance was a clear sign of the strength of America's Israel lobby and its domination of the US Congress that allows the Israeli tail to wag the American dog. Israel's Likud Party appears determined to hold on to most of the West Bank and Golan at all costs.
Israel had became used to getting its way with the accommodating Clinton and Bush administrations. Relations with the Obama White House are edgy in spite of Israel's clout in Washington.
Netanyahu reportedly called Obama's two most important advisors, Rahm Emanuel (whose father was Israeli) and David Axelrod, "self-hating Jews" for pressing Israel to end colonization and accepting a Palestinian state. Netanyahu later denied the comment, but the damage was done.
A key partner in Netanyahu's Likud-led coalition, Rabbi Ovadia Josef, spiritual leader (if he were in Iran, he'd be a Grand Ayatollah) of the religious Shas Party, called Obama, "a slave who wants to rule the world" for urging Israel to halt settlement activity. The pro-Likud Washington Post newspaper dropped its pretense of impartiality and also blasted Obama over the settlement issue.
Meanwhile, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, America's most powerful lobby, which reflects the policies and thinking of Netanyahu's Likud Party, reminded Obama not to press Israel into a peace agreement.
While running for president, an abject Obama promised AIPAC he would never force Israel into an agreement it did not favor. He also vowed never to compel Israel to share Jerusalem with a new Palestinian state, a pre-requisite to any lasting settlement. So candidate Obama effectively handcuffed President Obama.
In a stinging contradiction to Gates' threats, the Pentagon's chief, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, warned any war with Iran would be extremely dangerous. He expressed the widely held fear among the US military that an Israeli attack on Iran would drag the US into a war it does not want and is not ready to fight. US forces that now ring Iran -- in Iraq, the Gulf, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia -- are also vulnerable to Iranian ground and missile attack in wartime. In effect, they are hostages.
Mullen's very public warning was another important sign of the deep divisions within the Obama administration over Iran and the Mideast.
Lost in this fracas was the announcement by the militant Palestinian movement, Hamas, that it would accept (though not now formally recognize) Israel within its former 1967 borders. This was a very important step forward as until now, Hamas has refused to accept the very existence of Israel. In turn, Israel has used Hamas' refusal to avoid any open contacts with the most popular and democratically elected Palestinian group.
Long-simmering opposition to Israel's expansionist policies among American Jews has recently erupted into the open, spearheaded by the new "J Street Group," which opposes the pro-Likud AIPAC and supports Israel's peace movement, and creation of a Palestinian state. Other Jewish liberal groups are also challenging AIPAC's party line.
Not surprisingly, "J Street" is being denounced as traitors and "self-hating Jews' by the right wing Israel lobby. Compared to the 800-lb AIPAC, "J Street" is a minnow. But this split in American Jewish ranks is very significant. There will be no genuine peace agreement or creation of a viable Palestinian state until the influential American Jewish community throws its weight behind the peace plan.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Israel's far right likud party seems willing to plunge the US into a oil crisis driven depression of historic magnitude by starting an utterly unnecessary war with Iran, all in an effort to get our attention away from razing the settlements, and sending the settlers and the IDF that guard them packing.
We need to get EXTREMELY tough with any nation that would endanger us in that manner.
American Jews definitely need to get educated and WANT to learn about what is really happening in Israel, much of the time there is misguided loyalty and an ostrich acceptance because well, it's Israel. Simply because we are Jewish doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't be critical of Israeli Governmental policies. We should and we must.
As far as promises from Candidate Obama are concerned, enough have been altered or changed or broken so what's one more------
some might say the former, but i still hope the bully actions of Israel will be stopped.
I agree, American Jews do need to get educated, but not because of any misguided loyalty in my opinion, but because if they followed the issue on a daily basis they'd be quite clear what's going and who the various players are. They'd also be very clear that AIPAC is a lobby group like AARP is and aside from being effective, if it had the power that you're attributing to it, the US would have attacked Iran, sold Israel the advanced weaponry it refuses to sell them, and certainly wouldn't make an issue over 20 new apartments being built in a former Jewish neighborhood in the city of Jerusalem where Jews have lived for 3 thousand years.
In fact, if Jews were more educated about Israel, they'd never make the statement you have at all so I'm all for it.
Things Americans Need to Know about the pro-Israeli lobby:
Gambling with peace: how US bingo dollars are funding Israeli settlements
http://www
"The network is alleged to have laundered tens of millions of dollars through Jewish charities controlled by rabbis in New York and New Jersey."
http://www
"A federal tax fraud ring stretching from Chicago to Israel sought to bring in more than $35 million in tax refunds using the identities of thousands of federal prisoners, authorities here announced today."
http://www
Well I guess Obama's job just got a whole lot more difficult:
This just reported by Haaretz
"The status of Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state is a red line that no Palestinian leader is permitted to cross, President Mahmoud Abbas' ruling Fatah faction declared in the West Bank on Saturday.
According to Israel Radio, the Fatah general conference, which convened in Bethlehem for a three-day gathering, adopted a position paper which also states that the Palestinian national enterprise will not reach fruition until all of Jerusalem, including the outlying villages, come under Palestinian sovereignty. "
http://haa
Observation:
The Knesset passed the Jerusalem law in 1980. It has since been denounced by the UN and the ICJ and the United States only pays lip service to it. Israel has long since crossed that red line and made it an obstacle to peace.
Another obfuscation MemorySelective ?
Lets see, in 2000 at Camp David and in 2006 by the former Israeli government----they offer to share E. Jerusalem withdraw from 99% of the West Bank including just about all settlements, recognize a Palestinian state and the response of the Palestinians was to declare war in 2000 and to refuse to even adhere to past treaties in 2006. Some peace partner. This article ignores any history of the "peace process."
Observation:
Israel never offered that and they /certainly/ did not offer to return even 99% of the West Bank. Your point would make more sense if it had some foundation in reality.
just like always you distort facts very conveniently, like the proposed approval of state was for a modern day ghetto where is.rael controls the airspace, no military etc would i.srael have considered such a treaty in exchange for peace i.e. be a sitting duck to the radical settlers who are armed to teeth....
as for violence when did A.riel Shar.on became a Pale.tinia
I am just happy when her post is actually on the topic of the thread. That in itself is a victory.
The only road to peace is a road where there are no street vendors (AI.PAC)..
it is quiet interesting to see 'washington post' a U.S. paper is taking side with a foreign country against Obama!
there was an article in NyPost (Murdoch's one of the quality journalism entity)...
http://www
One thing is, Iran = worlds exporter of terrorism and will NEVER 'engage' in meaningful talks. They had many years to do so, ask El Baradei!!!!
Deal with reality and not wishful thinking people. not everyone can be your friend.
America stands strong because of what it is, stop bowing down you dummies.
Query:
And were you "dealing with reality" when we were being told that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program in 2003?
Ahhh, just another obfuscation completely off the topic of the thread
and not everyone who claims to be your friend is really your friend
peace tomorrow can be had. Just have Arabs et al say to Israel it may exist, and everyone minds their own country. End of story. But that's too complex for most who suffer from jealousy and love the perpetually aggreived narrative.
BHO has nothing to offer here, Saudi already told him to piss off.
Only fools focus on Israel's nukes. If your policy is nuclear ambiguity, that rules out aggression and that shows Israel has never been the aggressor.
I guess this is hard for many. Sheesh.
Observation:
The Arab nations have pledged to do so just as long as Israel decides to give up its dreams of military expansionism.
Reference:
Arab Peace Initiative, 2002
http://www
Cornerstone of the "Arab Peace Initiative:" Israel must accept over 4 million hostile arabs into the pre 1967 boundaries. Talk about the end of a country's existence.
the issue is land and whether the desire is for peace or piece
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
