October 17, 2008
Dead letter
Daled Amos has an example of an American failure to stand up to the Palestinian Authority.
This isn't a matter of failing to defend Israel, but of failing to defend American citizens; or even to call those responsible for their murders to account. It's one in a number of failures of the American government to demand even the most basic display of responsibility from the Palestinians.
This has been a failure of the Bush administration. (And it was a failure of the Clinton administration before it.)
Evelyn Gordon lays out an even more damning case against the outgoing administration.in Just another bit of fish wrapping:
Does anyone still remember George W. Bush's April 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon? At the time, it was touted as Israel's main quid pro quo for uprooting 25 settlements, expelling some 10,000 Israelis from their homes and withdrawing the army from Gaza. Yet today, it is never mentioned - and for good reason: In the ensuing four years, the Bush and Olmert administrations between them have systematically eviscerated every "achievement" it allegedly granted Israel.
(It would appear that the Washington Post need not have worried so much. William Safire had a much different take at the time.)
But there's a name that's very important in Gordon's opening paragraph: "Olmert." What would have happened if Ariel Sharon's successor had insisted that the United States make good on its pledges? Well here's how Gordon describes one:
THE LETTER also pledged that "Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations," if Gaza did prove "a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means" than diplomatic pressure. In reality, Washington pressed Olmert to avoid anything beyond ineffective, small-scale military operations. But there, it was pushing against an open door: Olmert wanted a major operation as little as Bush did.
(Though, it seemed that the United States would have allowed a more decisive Israeli campaign against Hezbollah in 2006 than PM Olmert was willing to risk.)
And in the matter of the American pledge that all Palestinians would be settled in Palestinian territory, Gordon writes that the United States never much mentioned it again, but didn't back down from its words. However ...
Olmert, however, single-handedly gutted this achievement by offering to absorb some 20,000 Palestinian refugees under any deal. And as everyone knows, the minute you concede the principle, the price is negotiable.Predictably, therefore, the world is already pressuring Israel to raise the figure. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, for instance, declared earlier this month that not only must Tzipi Livni honor Olmert's offer, she might even have to increase it: "I don't know how many [refugees Israel must accept] - 10,000 or 100,000, I don't know," he said.
While there's no excusing the Bush administrations reversals; I wonder if things would have been different if Ariel Sharon hadn't been incapacitated. More generally, is Israel's well being more dependent on who is elected American President or on who is elected (or succeeds as) Prime Minister of Israel?
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted by SoccerDad at October 17, 2008 3:25 AM
Not a good 90 day bet
Making the political personal
Recent jewish blogging 111510
Oh, that historic compromise
Bibi: tom's frequent non-flier
Just like tom friedman greens
Happier times for Happy Meals?
Mediterranean conference cancelled on account of cooties
The day the anniversary died
This is nothing as far as Bush and Israel are concerned. His stance started changing after he was re-elected. legacy and all that jazz.
Both Obama and McCain make all the platitudes they want to Israel. In the end, it will the US's interest that will determine US policy.
Looking at history, when Israel has been under attack or threatened by neighboring countries, it has been the Democratic presidents that have responded much more quickly than Republican ones.
Check out Eisenhower(Republican). He made France and Israel stop their advance into Egypt. Egypt had seized the Suez Canal. If Israel and France had not been pressured to stop, maybe there would have been peace.
During the 1967 War, Johnson(Democrat) reversed US policy of pandering to the Arab countries and supported Israel with needed weapons.
During the Yom Kippur War, Nixon(Republican) dithered while Israel desperately needed more tanks.
The peace treaty Carter(Democrat) brokered between Israel and Egypt has, thus far, resulted in Israel not having to face war with combined Arab armies. His politics after he was voted out of office stink of anti-Semitism and I despise him.
Reagan(Republican) gave Arafat and his terrorist buddies passage out of Lebanon and Israel has had to deal with a dramatic increase of terrorists attacks against its citizens since then.
George Bush(Republican), wouldn't let Israel participate in the first Gulf War and Israeli citizens had to hunker down from incoming Iraqi SCUDS. Israeli cooties!!!
It is telling that it was a Democrat who bucked the US trend of pandering to Arab countries.
Posted by: shira0607 at October 17, 2008 8:26 AM
"Olmert, however, single-handedly gutted this achievement by offering to absorb some 20,000 Palestinian refugees under any deal. And as everyone knows, the minute you concede the principle, the price is negotiable.
Predictably, therefore, the world is already pressuring Israel to raise the figure".
==========================================
Olmert has been the worst disaster for Israel.
Shira0607, It's rare that we come across this kind of blatant partisan revisionism. Your nose must be a foot long.
Let's correct the record...We'll start with Harry Truman, who reluctantly agreed to rcognize the State of Israel...and then not only put an arms embargo on the country when it was struggling for it's life an dprohibited American Jews from going to Isrtael to fight, but refused to use his considerable leverage with Britain to prohibit them from arming and officvering the Arab's jihad armies - and this a mere three years after Auschwitz was liberated.
The US was more or less neutral after the `48 War, and sold no major arms to Israel to avoid pissing the Arabs and their oil off. Lyndon Johnson ( who, ironically, had a superb record saving Jews in the Holocaust as a Congressman) stood in the Rose Garden with Dean Rusk and proclaimed the US neutral in 'thought word and deed.'
The Six Day War was won with French Mystere Jets and a mixture of modified Centurian, T-54 and surplus Sherman tanks.
When the US and Israel really cemented their alliance was during the Nixon Administration, one president you failed to mention. Aside from establishing the loan guarantees to allow Israel to buy US arms, Nixon saved Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973 by pushing through an amazing emergency arms airlift that involved mid air refueling ( because the Europeans wouldn't allow the US Jets to land).
You remember Nixon..the guy Leftidt Jews love to demonize as an `anti-Semite.'
Jimmy Carter deserves zero credit for the Egyptian-Israeli peace deal aside from the photo op. The principles had already agreed on most of the important details in meetings held in Madrid. It lasted mostly because Anwar Sadat was a brave man, the Egyptians desperately need that $2 billion in annual US aid and the Egyptians are aware that in th eevent of hostilities the Israelis have the capacity to destroy the Aswan Dam and put the inhabitable part of Egypt under fifteen feet of water.
As for Arafat,that would be the fault of Oslo and Mr. Bill. While Reagan let Arafat live, he was powerless sand marginalized in Tunis, until he became Clinton's favorite terrorist and Mr. Bill jawboned a Labor Israeli government into letting him set up shop next door.
I have no quarrel, BTW, with your characterizations of the Bushes...they've been in bed with the Arabs for a long time.
I would point out that Dubbyah was extremely pro-Israel during his first term...and was rewarded with a lousy 33% or so of the Jewish vote in `04.
Not too hard to imagine James Baker or Prince Bandar sidling up to him at th eranch in Crawford and saying `Y'see, George? Told you the Jews woul dnever vote for you no matter what.'
The current election is a great example. Here we have two stalwart pro-Israel Republicans versus a Democrat with long standing alliances and associations with Jew haters and Israel bashers, even amoing his foreign policy advisors..yet Obama will still probably wind up with 60% of the Jewish vote.
Posted by: Rob at October 17, 2008 9:11 PM