Appeasement - not a sensible life jacket!

Nothing changes the chemistry of a relationship between two friends faster than the failure of either to perform according to expectations, written or otherwise. This is true in marriage, business, politics and diplomacy - life in general.

Olmert's failure, in Lebanon, altered Israel's relationship with the Bush administration in ways that are psychologically irredeemable. Olmert may or may not understand, though,I suspect he does. Publicly and politically Olmert feels compelled to maintain a position of denial. If nothing else, Lebanon made more acceptable the case argued by others that Israel's intransigence is the root cause of the Middle East's problems. Though Jimmy continues his buffoonery even the title of his new book, outrageous as it may be, adds support to this argument.(See 1 below.)

On the other hand, Bush's failed policies in Iraq and the loss of the election, for whatever reason, have now weakened him and allowed the Baker Group to enter the picture with their call to negotiate with our enemies. Beyond that nothing new was really proffered. Should we engage Iran and Syria, we will be doing so from a position of weakness and realistically must lower our expectations. In the process, the leverage we have over Israel becomes more meaningful and will, most likely be used as a bargaining chip.

The Baker Report clearly states we cannot continue to fight as we have been and adds we cannot win militarily in any case. The mood of the American public, whether intended to be or not, nourishes Baker's viewpoint. The fact that Baker's Group has said what it has, tends to make their case a fait accompli in today's media driven world. We shall never know, because the path of withdrawal has been determined as being our next directional course. The '08 election will only add emphasis and urgency.

GW's dismissal and departure of those upon whom he has relied and the downgraded influence of others who still remain has provided cracks in what had been an impenetrable support wall. Some would argue this is good because it allows the sunshine of those in disagreement - the so-called realists - to seep in while others would argue conversely they fear the policies of the so-called realists who are deemed - defeatists.

The road to Damascus has now been elevated and lighted as one of the key components to stabilize Iraq.

In order to bring Syria along two basic approaches are being debated:

A) Inform Assad he has one last chance to behave by renouncing and demonstrating, meaningfully, his withdrawal of support from Hezballah and Hamas and we, in turn, will support him with wider diplomatic recognition and aid and will press Israel to negotiate the return of Golan. If Assad fails to take the bait, we will inform him that we will isolate him politically and financially. Call this the velvet glove approach.

B) Strengthen Assad, whose leadership position is tenuous at best, be softer, more accommodative and stroke him. Call it the white dove approach.

Assad is no fool, understands the conundrum we are in and may decide his relationship with Iran is the better route. Factually, he already is in control of Lebanon and is capable of bringing down the government should he choose to press forward. Support of Hamas and Hezballah costs him some money but continues to weaken Israel and makes them more susceptible to negotiation.

Either way, since those seemingly gaining the upper hand - the realists - have linked Israel's conflict with the Palestinians as the bane of the problem, Israel stands to become the sacrificial lamb and the Golan could become one of Syria's negotiated prizes.

As for the Palestinians, statehood and return of more land, recognition of East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital will again be offered. The Palestinians can get most of what they want and still remain a threat to Israel because promises mean little in that region of the world and once our interests and diminished influence have moved elsewhere they most surely will mean less. Gaza is a good example. Land for peace brought Qassam rocket attacks and now, massive weapon smuggling.

Finally, Iran understands they, most likely, will achieve nuclear status by default, their influence in the region should rise while their threat to wipe Israel off the map should remain operative. Why, then, would Iran negotiate anything meaningful? Sec. Baker admitted, after being authorized by GW, that he proposed to Iran we hold a tete to tete but came away empty handed.

The bump in the orad with respect to seeking a resolution with the Palestinians is that Hezballah has again stated they want more, ie. the right of return and they remain unflinching in their unwillingness to recognize Israel etc. Perhaps pressure can be brought to alter Hamas' posture but it would be an act of forcing a horse to reluctantly drink and most agreements reached on that basis usually deteriorate once the parties have left the area of the stream. Furthermore, is this the case when the parties applying the pressure do so more from weakness than strength. (Baker should know about this for that is part of his own diplomatic legacy.)


Meanwhile, Israel stand the risk of being downgraded as a supported/supportable democracy, its relationship with America will become more tenuous in terms of our nation's willingness and/or ability to influence matters in the region. Israel's capability to effectively defend itself, which is already highly suspect in my opinion in the event of an all out and co-ordinated attack on it by Iran, Hezballah and Hamas, will be further degraded.

The entire picture, as of the moment, looks increasingly bleak and the pronouncements by the "realists" have added little by way of a solution. If a military option is unrealistic in Iraq and against Iran , negotiations with Syria and Iran are unlikely to produce anything meaningful, we will not have the time to stabilize Iraq even if doable and the ticking of the '08 elections begin driving decisions as it gets louder; one might conclude it is time to get out the forks and prepare to eat crow again. As for Israel, they have already been forewarned by the incoming Sec. of Defense, they are on their own in terms of Iran's nuclear status.

A pretty sad state of affairs that did not have to be but GW tried to swim upstream, made mistakes along the way and the tide of "aginners" grew and grew and grew. One day the tide will engulf them too because appeasement is not a sensible life jacket. Chamberlain tried it and the struts on his umbrella were crushed by German tanks.

In (1) below, Jonathan Tobin tries to explain why Republicans thought they had captured the Jewish vote when Carter was seeking a second term. Tobin also tries to understand Carter's antipathy towards Israel.

I am no psychiatrist but no doubt, as Tobin points out, Jimmy still smarts from the anti-Carter vote when he sought re-election. Carter, by his own admission in his first book, is a mean spirited, get even type personality.

I also believe, Carter does not cotton to those who are willing to be strong. He may be a strong willed person but he projects a rather pathetic and weak persona. I remember the picture of him on his knees exhausted after a jog in Germany about the time of the Iranian Embassy takeover.

Furthermore, as a result of his bible education, I believe he casts himself in the role of the lamb and, as a result of his lost presidential effort, aligns himself with the Palestinians as a victim. A victim of circumstances beyond his control. Carter sees Israel as the lion, as the nation that has consistently defeated its attackers. But a nation that accomplishes this goal, even against all odds, also runs the risk of those they defeat, over time, being morphed into victims. The Palestinians have become expert at portraying themselves as victims. Victims of everyone and everything but never their own cupidity, intransigence, stupidity in following the leadership they have consistently chosen and their tragic story goes on and on. Carter was a victim of an Iranian takeover. The foundation of which he, no doubt, believes was laid by his predecessor.


But why should Palestinians change since it has brought their leaders untold riches and financial support, world recognition beyond their numbered importance and a West, always willing to pull their chestnuts out of the fire? Meanwhile the Palestinian family in the street is the real loser but for some inexplicable reason they seem to relish seeing their own children blow themselves up in the senseless glory of killing Israelis. Perhaps Carter and the Palestinians are driven by something stronger than love - self-deceit

Blaming Israel for the plight of the pitiful Palestinians and Jewish voters who overwhelmingly shifted their temporary allegiance to the Republicans and thereby, helped defeat him, is a thinly disguised attempt to even the score. Nobel Winners can also be losers for in the final analysis they too are human and have frailties. Don't we all.

Dick



1) What's the Matter with Jimmy?
By Jonathan Tobin

Coming to grips with the 39th president's malevolent obsession with Israel


Only a few weeks ago, American Jews proved once again that they are, next to African-Americans, the most loyal constituency that the Democratic party can claim.


As the last few elections have illustrated, despite the efforts of Republicans to highlight their support of Israel, as well as their foes' shortcomings, the huge majorities Jews give the Democrats are only marginally effected by such advocacy.


But the GOP never gives up, in part because they know that within their living memory, there was one national election in which such appeals actually did succeed.


The year was 1980, and in that pivotal contest Ronald Reagan achieved nearly 40 percent of the Jewish vote. Like a sacred home-run record, the number teases the Republicans engendering hopes that are dashed every time they try to equal it.


But after all this time, during which the predicted swing to the Republicans never happened, maybe we have been posing the wrong question about Reagan's record. Instead of asking what prevents a repeat of 1980 for the Republicans, we should instead be pondering what extraordinary catastrophe afflicted Democrats in that one year?


The answer can be summed up in just two words: Jimmy Carter.


Despite presiding over a ceremony celebrating Israel's first peace treaty with a neighboring Arab country, it was antipathy to the sage of Plains, Ga., more than any passing affection for Reagan that determined the Jewish vote in 1980. And there is little doubt that the widespread perception of his hostility toward Israel was decisive in creating a Jewish swing vote that has never been replicated in a national election. The Democrats' magic formula for success since then is simple: Keep Carter off the ballot.


Rejected in his bid for re-election, Carter has been forced to settle for the unofficial title of the most self-righteous man in America. Through good deeds, such as his championing of causes like Habitat for Humanity, and his relentless and often shameless pursuit of publicity on human rights and democracy controversies around the globe, Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize. This gives him a permanent platform from which to pontificate on any and all subjects in his typically sanctimonious manner.


Yet though his interests may span the globe, there is one to which he has returned over and over again: the Middle East and Israel's conflict with the Arabs. And what he has been increasingly preaching lately is a scathing indictment of Israel as an oppressive "apartheid" state.


The latest reminder of this pre-eminent theme of Carter's post-presidential career is a new book titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, in which he sets forth his thesis of Israeli perfidy.


While the titles of some books are misleading, Carter's is not. He actually attempts to make a case that a democratic Israel, whose Jewish majority has never been given a moment's peace from the day of its birth 58 years ago, is analogous to the oppressive white minority that ruled South Africa.


It is a charge so preposterous, and so lacking in reason or sense, that were this the work of any ordinary American it would not likely be given a hearing outside of the fever swamps of the far right or left, where anti-Zionist minorities dwell.


Instead, the book is being promoted on a national tour during which the ex-president has been interviewed on virtually every major national news program, and given a treatment that can only be described as presidential. Indeed, on NBC's "Meet the Press" where the normally fair-minded Tim Russert usually manages to put the leaders of both parties on the defensive, Carter's slander of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans who love Israel as an all-powerful "lobby" determined to squelch all dissent went unchallenged.


As for the content of the book, it's part memoir and part half-baked history. As many reviewers have already noted (most notably, Alan Dershowitz in the Forward), it is a collection of distortions, errata and falsehoods that would fill a small volume itself.


They add up to an account that disregards Jewish rights to the land, dismisses consistent Jewish acceptance of compromises, ignores a century of Palestinian terrorism and mischaracterizes the persistent Arab rejection of Jewish statehood. The conflict for him is one long account of Israeli violence and Palestinian suffering. For him, the Jews can do virtually no right and the Palestinians no wrong. Since Arab terror doesn't register in Carter's brain, Israeli self-defense can be put down as "oppression."


This Orwellian compendium of slander aimed at Israel is punctuated by accounts of Carter's own involvement in diplomacy and visits to the area.


The book is revealing in one respect. For all of his supposed love for humanity, it appears the Israelis are the one exception to his famous religious goodwill. Though Carter praises the murderous Syrian dictator Hafez Assad and Palestinian arch-terrorist (and fellow Nobel winner) Yasser Arafat, he simply loathes almost every Israeli he meets. And he isn't shy about noting instances in which they have committed the gravest of sins: ignoring his advice.


For instance, he describes in detail a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin after Carter had left office. Forced by protocol to receive the ex-president, Carter admits that he then subjected the Israeli (whom he obviously despised) to a lecture about his shortcomings. Carter expected Begin, who had been the victim of previous such lectures during the Georgian's presidency, to debate him as he had in the past. Instead, the wily Israeli simply listened politely, and then made it clear that the meeting was over. Decades later, Begin's courteous dismissal of Carter's ill-informed tirade apparently still stings.


A perplexed Dershowitz wonders what would lead "a decent man" to write such a manifestly false book? While I'm not as convinced of Carter's decency as Dershowitz, it's a good question that deserves more scrutiny than the book itself.


I don't know the complete answer, but it is clear from his book that the former president bitterly resents the Israelis lack of acceptance of his ideas. Their stubborn refusal to sell their own survival short has bred in him an anger that seems to grow with every passing year.


And perhaps he also harbors a grudge against American friends of Israel whose votes helped sink his presidency. Indeed, Republicans still use Carter as a symbol of Democratic perfidy, even though most mainstream Democrats have disavowed his crusade against Israel. He remains a symbol of what may happen should their party ever truly betray its Jewish supporters.


But what Israel's friends in both parties cannot afford to do is to give him a pass for this latest outrage. No past good deeds or the intrinsic respect we all hold anyone who has served as president should prevent us from labeling him as the liar and hater that he has become.

Dick