Issues pertaining to American and Israeli relations. (See 1, 1a, 1b, and 1c. below.)
And: This for those who are conspiratorial believers: https://conservativetribune.
++++++++++++++
Avi's book, reviewed.
I have not read as yet as I am still trying to finish "Sapiens." but taking it on my lengthy trip and should have finished by the time I return.(See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently John Bolton will become the head of the National Intelligence Agency.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ B
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Is favoring Israel an American national security interest?
BY ERIC R. MANDEL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Should the United States distance itself from Israel to become a neutral negotiator? According to a Wall Street Journal article, the Trump administration’s recent “moves have been seen as favoring Israel by Europeans, the Palestinians and their supporters.”
Lost in the discussion is whether America’s national security interests would be best served as a neutral intermediary, or, as Nikki Haley recently said, “There’s nothing wrong with showing favoritism towards an ally.”
Is Israel a strategically vital ally?
Back in 201, the Washington Institute’s Robert Blackwill and Walter Slocombe said, “There is no other Middle East country whose definition of national interests is so closely aligned with that of the United States.” Today those interests include reigning in Iranian expansionism and its quest for weapons of mass destruction, while combating both radical Sunni and Shiite Islamist terrorism.
The State Department, over the years, has been reluctant to “take sides” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that this would have negative effects for America’s other interests in the region.
However, it seems this has not advanced American interests or brought peace to the region. It has magnified Palestinian intransigence, while draining American taxpayer dollars, propping up a corrupt Palestinian Authority without demanding anything substantial of it.
Beyond shared democratic western values, does Israel advance American interests?
In the 21st century, intelligence and cyber-defense are paramount for security. For the United States, there is no better source of reliable information in the Middle East than Israel. The Israelis live in this bad neighborhood and understand the realities better than those on the outside.
It was Israel that discovered the North Korean-built Syrian nuclear reactor and destroyed it. Can you imagine the threat to American security if there were loose nukes in today’s Syria? Who would control them — ISIS, Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah, or Iran? These days, do we want our military in the region to be dependent on Turkey’s President Erdogan?
Today the United States has a reliable naval port in Haifa, joint military exercises preparing its soldiers, American troops manning the X-band anti-missile system in Israel to protect Europe, Israeli security technology for U.S. homeland security, and Israel’s advances in drone technology to benefit our military.
It should be clear to all that the present Palestinian leadership is incapable of making the hard but essential choices for real peace, a demilitarized state, ending the claim of a “right of return” of descendants of Palestinians refugees to Israel, accepting a Jewish State, and signing a final end-of-conflict agreement.
The Palestinians disengaged from meaningful negotiations years ago. President Abbas used the opportunity of Trump’s Jerusalem announcement to end America’s primary role in mediating the conflict, moving it to the more friendly confines of an internationalized mediation. Abbas knows full well that the Europeans are his best ally and advocate, with the deck stacked against Israel.
As retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Michael Herzog wrote in World Affairs, Abbas “was afraid of the U.S. peace plan coming his way, felt he would have to reject it — while Israel may say yes — and didn’t want to navigate that situation.”
Pro-Palestinian Americans, such as Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, have encouraged the Palestinian leadership to distance itself from America; Khalidi called the United States the “eternally dishonest broker” in an op-ed in The Nation. A binational state controlled by Palestinians, where Israel now stands, would be an unreliable American strategic partner and would cripple American security in the Levant.
Far too many American secretaries of State have wanted to be the one to be the hero to cut the Gordian knot, to do something about the Arab-Israeli situation, so they have pressured Israel to make major concessions. American administrations have pressured Israel repeatedly because it is the one party in the conflict that is susceptible to pressure.
Unacknowledged by the realist school of thought advocated by Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Israel over the years has taken profound risks to accommodate American interests to its own detriment. President George W. Bush’s demand for Palestinian elections in 2006, against Israeli advice, directly led to Hamas’ takeover of Gaza. Bush’s father demanded that Israel break its own strategic doctrine by not responding to the Iraqi Scud attack during the Gulf War.
If a Western-style peace settlement is beyond possible in the shifting sands of the Islamic Middle East, what, then, will advance American security interests? The problem is that our interests have moved way beyond the conflict over the past decade, with our primary security problem being Iranian hegemony and its alignment with anti-American allies and proxies — Russia, Syria, Hezbollah and Turkey’s Erdogan.
So, how can America and Israel move forward without a Palestinian partner? The best, but still unlikely, possibility is encouraging the Sunni Arab Gulf states to start dealing with Israel as an equal and legitimate nation in the open, forcing the Palestinians to make more reasonable demands. The idea of treating these two belligerents evenly is morally obtuse, but treating them fairly according to our interests is appropriate.
Yes, American foreign policy interests would be advanced if there is resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but not at the expense of endangering the security interests of its indispensable ally Israel — security interests that are vital to combating Iranian, Turkish and Russian expansionism. You need only to look at Turkey, the eastern flank of NATO, to know how important Israel has become to American long-term security interests in the region.
Favoring Israel is an American national security interest. It lets our other allies know that America sticks with its longtime friends, and warns our adversaries not to underestimate American loyalty.
Eric R. Mandel is director of the Middle East Political and Information Network (MEPIN™). He regularly briefs members of Congress on the Middle East.
1a) COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
"National Security Leaders" Adopt the Palestinian Narrative
Blog Post by Elliott Abrams
On March 2, seventeen “National Security Leaders” issued an alarming statement about Israel-Palestinian peace and U.S. policy. The statement was carried as an ad in The New York Times and a PDF version can be found here.
In my view, the statement is fairly radical in its departure from what has been U.S. policy for decades. How?
--The Statement claims that “previous U.S. administrations” have “accepted” a Palestinian demand for “equal and minimal land swaps.” I will speak only about the George W. Bush administration. We understood that land swaps were a very useful idea to make the two-state solution work, but we did not back any demand that they be “equal and minimal.” That was to be negotiated by the parties.
--The Statement says that “Jerusalem [is] to be the capital of Israel and Palestine, in the west and the east of the city respectively, an open city for the faithful of the three monotheistic religions.” The Bush administration also left the borders of Jerusalem to be determined by the parties, and never insisted on an “open city”—whatever that means.
--The Statement calls for “Ensuring the security of the two states consistent with their respective sovereignty and supported by a third-party security mechanism.” The Bush administration understood that security was an enormously complex and dangerous issue, but did not demand a “third-party security mechanism.” Again, the meaning of that phrase is entirely unclear, while it has long been entirely clear that Israel would not hand its security over to the United Nations, the United States, NATO troops, or any other possible “mechanism.”
--The Statement says our goal should be “Two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.” What’s missing here? Compare the words of President Bush when addressing the United Nations General Assembly in 2002: “In the Middle East there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices.” The Statement makes no mention whatsoever of freedom or democracy, simply abandoning the hopes and indeed the rights of the Palestinian people in this regard.
--The Statement says that a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians “remains a core U.S. national interest.” Really? A desirable goal to be sure, but as one thinks of the rise of China, American military preparedness, missile defense, Iranian and North Korean nukes, energy issues, and the like, does solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict qualify as a “core national interest?”
The Statement is radical in a more significant way in embracing the Palestinian view that only Israel is to blame for the failure of peace negotiations. It says that “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, addressing the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday, February 20, affirmed the Palestinian commitment to a peaceful negotiated path….” Nowhere does it note that for nine years running now, the PLO has refused to come to the table and negotiate. If Abbas is committed to the path of negotiations, why did he not take it—especially in the years when Secretary of State Kerry was energetically trying to make that happen. It is worth recalling the comment of Martin Indyk, who was part of the American team under Obama: while PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas “checked out of the negotiations," Israeli prime minister Netanyahu "moved into the zone of a possible agreement." Indyk spreads blame to both parties, but his statement fully contradicts the Palestinian “narrative” that the Statement adopts.
The Statement does say that “The Palestinian leadership has reiterated its commitment to a non-violent path of diplomatic negotiations and dialogue. Having articulated principles for a peaceful settlement, Palestinian leaders must also demonstrate this commitment in words and deeds….” That’s fine, but nowhere does the Statement actually demand that the PLO do the single thing that should be most obvious: agree to get back to the negotiating table.
The statement is radical in holding that the American role over the years is blameworthy: “Addressing legitimate Palestinian grievances, and America's role in their prolongation, is…crucial to the goal of de-radicalization, denying oxygen to extremists, and resetting America's standing and relationships.” Note that “legitimate Israeli grievances” are not even mentioned.
But how exactly has the United States “prolonged Palestinian grievances?” This is not explained. It must be assumed, given the overall tone of the Statement, that the answer is simple: the United States has been too “pro-Israel” and has not crammed a deal down Israel’s throat. So again, according to this Statement the blame does not lie with the Palestinians, led for decades by the terrorist Yasser Arafat and now by someone who refused a peace deal in 2008 and has for nine years refused to negotiate.
The Statement is radical in backing fully the Palestinian demand that the traditional American role in fostering negotiations must be usurped by others. The Statement backs the Palestinian call for a grand international conference whose ambitions and participants are worth noting: “with the participation of the parties themselves, the International Quartet, as well as the permanent members of the Security Council and regional stakeholders, creating a multilateral mechanism to assist the Israelis and Palestinians in negotiations, and to realize the Arab Peace Initiative and conclude a regional peace based on an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement consistent with UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.” That formulation would bring China into the mix, and Syria as well (isn’t it a “regional stakeholder?”). And what does concluding “a regional peace” mean, exactly? Israeli-Palestinian negotiations may be insufficiently complicated, so peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria should now be in the mix?
Lest there be any confusion as to its intent, the Statement concludes this way: “If the Administration rejects two states and these reasonable parameters, then other members of the Quartet, of the Security Council and International Community should move forward with parameters and a mechanism to re-focus efforts on an early return to the two-state solution.”
So what is this all about? Clearly the signers believe the United States has long been much too pro-Israel. And now the dreaded Trump administration has gone even further in that direction (for example, one must suppose, by recognizing that Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, is Israel’s capital) --and this is intolerable. Therefore the signers demand that the “International Community” take over. This is not entirely unreasonable in one way: we can surely count on the “International Community” to abandon the support of Israel that has characterized American foreign policy, and to try to force a solution unfavorable to Israel. Israel has seventy years of experience with the “International Community” and it is bitter.
After all, that “International Community” includes 57 Islamic states, the EU, and countries hostile to Israel such as Sweden and Cuba. The Statement is, then, is a cry of anguish about the Trump administration’s strong support of Israel and a demand that someone, somewhere, start meeting to take the Palestinian side and pressure Israel for concessions.
Most surprising about this Statement is the thought that its many distinguished signers believe this can possibly work. Admittedly, not all signers are distinguished: one is distinguished only for hostility to Israel; several others are quite distinguished but have no particular expertise in this subject area. But what of those who have long experience? Do they really think any of this can happen, or would have any positive effect? A gigantic international conference “by mid 2018”—this is in the Statement—in other words with minimal preparation?
I have an elixir that can calm the signers down. I suggest they travel in the Arab world, where the main topics are Iran and (as always) regime survival.
There they will find as I have that the sense of emerging calamity because Israel and the PLO have not made peace is missing. No one is demanding vast conferences or is seeking to exclude the United States. But the Arab world is far, so an alternative is traveling to Capitol Hill. There as well they will find no sense that America’s relationship with Israel requires that the “International Community” push us aside and take over, nor any belief among the leaders of either party that America is to blame for “prolonging” the Palestinians’ problems. They will find plenty of opposition to the Trump Administration, but happily it has not been translated into an analysis of the Middle East that blames Israel and the United States for the region’s troubles.
The Statement, like so many of its intellectual predecessors, infantilizes the Palestinians: they are victims and little else. But the past suggests, to me at least, that only when Palestinians take responsibility for their politics, their civic culture, their society, and their future can peace really be possible.
1b)
Secretary of State nominee ‘friend of Israel,’ critic of Iran deal
March 14, 2018
Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo (AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
It appears that President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, CIA director Mike Pompeo, views Israel favorably and sees the Iran nuclear deal as fatally flawed.
By: Ebin Sandler, World Israel News
By all accounts, President Donald Trump is preparing to nominate CIA chief Mike Pompeo to serve as the next US Secretary of State following Trump’s dismissal of Rex Tillerson earlier in the week. Tillerson and Trump failed to see eye to eye on the fate of the nuclear deal with Iran, which the president is determined to either significantly alter or eliminate completely.
In the past, Pompeo’s positions on Israel have reflected an appreciation for the Jewish state’s role in maintaining stability in the Middle East. According to former Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, Pompeo has a very positive disposition toward Israel, the Jerusalem Post reported. Oren’s comments were based on interactions with Pompeo when the latter served as a congressman representing Kansas.
Oren explained to the Post that Pompeo breaks the mold of many State Department career employees and appointees, whom he says pursue an Arabist worldview in their positions at the agency. Oren cited as examples of this posture former Secretaries of State John Kerry, Condoleezza Rice, and Madeleine Albright.
Pompeo has been described in the past as “a friend of American Jews and a true friend of Israel” by Matt Brooks, who leads the Republican Jewish Coalition. During a 2015 visit to Israel as a congressman from Kansas, Pompeo was briefed by the Israel Police and made a stop at the Western Wall. At that time, Pompeo lauded Israelis’ “admirable restraint in the face of unspeakably cruel attacks,” in reference to a wave of Palestinian terrorism, including a rash of fatal stabbings.
With regard to Iran, Pompeo unequivocally criticized the nuclear deal signed with the Islamic Republic in 2015, subsequently tweeting that he advocates “rolling back this disastrous deal with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.” Pompeo favors extending sanctions on Iran, in addition to taking further actions to reign in the nation’s regional aggression and nuclear ambitions.
1c)
POLL: U.S. PUBLIC SYMPATHY FOR ISRAEL AT RECORD HIGH
The Gallup Poll showed that 74% of the US public views Israel favorably.
BY HERB KEINON
Two months after a Pew poll indicated a deep partisan split over Israel leading to much hand-wringing in Israel, Gallup released its own poll showing that American public support for Israel has never been higher.
Under the headline “Americans Remain Staunchly in Israel's Corner,” Gallup – in an explanatory article written by senior Gallup editor Lydia Saad on its website on Tuesday – wrote that “as the Trump administration prepares to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and is reportedly finalizing its broader Middle East peace plan, Americans' stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is as strongly pro-Israel as at any time in Gallup's three-decade trend.”
According to the poll, 64% of the US population says their sympathies lie more with Israel than the Palestinians, with 19% saying they sympathize more with the Palestinians.
This tied the previous high recorded in 1991, the year of the Gulf War, when Scud missiles rained down on Israel, and 2013, when president Barack Obama visited the country. The 45 point differential in this year's poll between those saying they support Israel and those saying their sympathies are with the Palestinians is, however, less than the 52 point difference in 2013 and the whopping 57% difference in 1991.
Fewer people than in the past, only 16%, have no opinion, the lowest percentage since Gallup began asking this question 30 years ago, and an indication, Saad wrote, that more Americans have taken a clear position on the dispute.
Gallup, like Pew, found a significant partisan gap, but far less pronounced than the Pew findings. According to the Gallup poll, 87% of Republicans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, though that number among Democrats is only 49%, representing a 38 point difference. In the Pew poll there was a huge 52 point difference between Republicans and Democrats (79% vs. 27%).
The Gallup poll showed the highest level of support ever among Republicans, and even among Democrats support increased eight percentage points from the low mark in 2005 – the year of the withdrawal from Gaza –when only 41% of Democrats expressed more sympathy for Israel. This is contrary to the widespread perception that Israel’s position among Democrats has never been worse.
The Gallup Poll showed that 74% of the US public views Israel favorably, the highest level since 1991, while 23% have a negative view of the country. The situation regarding the Palestinians is flipped, with 21% viewing the Palestinians Authority favorably, and 71% unfavorably.
The poll also showed that twice as many Americans believe the US should place more pressure on the Palestinians to solve the conflict (50%) than on Israel (27%).
According to Saad, “The broad contours of Americans' perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remain about the same under President Donald Trump as they've been in recent years. Most Americans view Israel favorably and the Palestinian Authority unfavorably, resulting in a strong tendency for Americans to sympathize with Israel in the territorial conflict and to call for greater diplomatic pressure to be placed on the Palestinians.”
With the pro-Israel sentiments particularly strong and growing among Republicans, Saad's conclusion was that “to satisfy his political base, Trump's options would seem limited to those that put minimal pressure on Israel over such thorny issues as the status of Jerusalem and the maintenance of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.”
However, she added, “given Trump's past efforts at diplomacy, anything is possible.”
The Gallup poll was conducted by phone interviews from from February 1-10, with a random sample of 1,044 adults, and has a ,±4% margin of error.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
| ||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment