Obama: "Israel doesn't know what its best interests are"
39 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/what-obama-thinks-israelis-don-t-understand-.html"]Source[/URL]
[quote]Shortly after the [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/united-nations-general-assembly/"]United Nations General Assembly[/URL] voted in late November to upgrade the status of the Palestinians, the government of Israeli Prime Minister [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/benjamin-netanyahu/"]Benjamin Netanyahu[/URL] announced that it would advance plans to establish a settlement in an area of the West Bank known as E-1, and that it would build 3,000 additional housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.
A large settlement in E-1, an empty zone between Jerusalem and the Jewish settlement city of Maaleh Adumim, would make the goal of politically moderate Palestinians -- the creation of a geographically contiguous state -- much harder to achieve.
The world reacted to the E-1 announcement in the usual manner: It condemned the plans as a provocation and an injustice. President [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/"]Barack Obama[/URL]’s administration, too, criticized it. “We believe these actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve a two-state solution,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council.
[B]‘Best Interests’[/B]
But what didn’t happen in the White House after the announcement is actually more interesting than what did.
[B]When informed about the Israeli decision, Obama, who has a famously contentious relationship with the prime minister, didn’t even bother getting angry. He told several people that this sort of behavior on Netanyahu’s part is what he has come to expect, and he suggested that he has become inured to what he sees as self-defeating policies of his Israeli counterpart.
[/B]
[B]In the weeks after the UN vote, Obama said privately and repeatedly, “[URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/israel/"]Israel[/URL] doesn’t know what its own best interests are.” With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation. [/B]
And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah -- one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend -- it won’t survive. [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/iran/"]Iran[/URL] poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.
The dysfunctional relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is poised to enter a new phase. Next week, Israeli voters will probably return Netanyahu to power, this time at the head of a coalition even more intractably right-wing than the one he currently leads.
[B]Obama has always had a complicated relationship with the prime minister. On matters of genuine security, Obama has been a reliable ally, encouraging close military cooperation, helping maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge over its regional rivals and, most important, promising that he won’t allow Iran to cross the nuclear-weapons threshold.
[/B]
[B]Yet even this support didn’t keep Netanyahu from pulling for Republican candidate [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/mitt-romney/"]Mitt Romney[/URL] in last year’s presidential campaign. [/B]
On matters related to the Palestinians, the president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.
Senator [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/john-kerry/"]John Kerry[/URL] of [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/massachusetts/"]Massachusetts[/URL], Obama’s nominee to replace [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/hillary-clinton/"]Hillary Clinton[/URL] as secretary of state, is said to be eager to re-energize the Middle East [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/peace-process/"]peace process[/URL], but Obama -- who already has a Nobel Peace Prize -- is thought to be considerably more wary. He views the government of Palestinian Authority President [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/mahmoud-abbas/"]Mahmoud Abbas[/URL] as weak, but he has become convinced that Netanyahu is so captive to the settler lobby, and so uninterested in making anything more than the slightest conciliatory gesture toward Palestinian moderates, that an investment of presidential interest in the peace process wouldn’t be a wise use of his time.
Obama, since his time in the Senate, has been consistent in his analysis of Israel’s underlying challenge: If it doesn’t disentangle itself from the lives of [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/west-bank/"]West Bank[/URL] Palestinians, the [B]world will one day decide it is behaving as an apartheid state. [/B]
[B]The Consequences[/B]
For Israel, the short-term consequences of Obama’s frustration are limited. The U.S. won’t cut off its aid to Israel, and Obama’s effort to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions will continue whether or not he’s fed up with Netanyahu.
But it is in terms of American diplomatic protection -- among the Europeans and especially at the UN -- that Israel may one day soon notice a significant shift. During November’s vote on [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/palestine/"]Palestine[/URL]’s status, the U.S. supported Israel and asked its allies to do the same. In the end, they were joined by a total of [URL="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm"]seven other countries[/URL], including the Pacific powerhouses Palau and Micronesia.
When such an issue arises again, Israel may find itself even lonelier. It wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. failed to whip votes the next time, or if the U.S. actually abstained. I wouldn’t be particularly surprised, either, if Obama eventually offered a public vision of what a state of Palestine should look like, and affirmed that it should have its capital in East [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/jerusalem/"]Jerusalem[/URL].
Obama isn’t making unreasonable demands. Israeli concerns about the turmoil in [URL="http://topics.bloomberg.com/syria/"]Syria[/URL] and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood are legitimate in the American view, and Obama knows that broad territorial compromise by Israel in such an unstable environment is unlikely.
But what Obama wants is recognition by Netanyahu that Israel’s settlement policies are foreclosing on the possibility of a two-state solution, and he wants Netanyahu to acknowledge that a two-state solution represents the best chance of preserving the country as a Jewish-majority democracy. Obama wants, in other words, for Netanyahu to act in Israel’s best interests.
[B]So far, though, there has been no sign that the Israeli government is gaining a better understanding of the world in which it lives.[/B][/quote]
Obama needs to stop appeasing Israel and just be blunt publicly, yeah there will be huge political backlash among the Israeli lobby and their purchased clients (i.e. Congress), but in the long-term, Obama will be remembered very positively for doing so. With Israel's position internationally swiftly losing support (notably in Europe), and with Israel's perpetration of their own self-decaying and self-isolative activities, it will soon be a universal fact to recognize Israel as the next apartheid state.
Obama should jump ship while he can, it'd be a shame to be remembered as one of the last presidents who supported Israel.
I was in the debate club and I heard so many kids saying Israel's a great and fair ally.
[QUOTE=Vintage Thatguy;39239267]I was in the debate club and I heard so many kids saying Israel's a great and fair ally.[/QUOTE]
Well, debate clubs are for disagreeing with each other and discussing polar opinions, right?
[editline]16th January 2013[/editline]
Join a consensus club instead.
[editline]16th January 2013[/editline]
Like, say, an Internet forum where most 'folks agree with your opinion.
[QUOTE=mac338;39239274]Well, debate clubs are for disagreeing with each other and discussing polar opinions, right?
[editline]16th January 2013[/editline]
Join a consensus club instead.
[editline]16th January 2013[/editline]
Like, say, an Internet forum where most 'folks agree with your opinion.[/QUOTE]
There was no real debating, it was just 10 kids praising Israel until I left to the library.
[QUOTE=Vintage Thatguy;39239300]There was no real debating, it was just 10 kids praising Israel until I left to the library.[/QUOTE]
No, that's when you have to start a debate.
[QUOTE=mac338;39239274]Well, debate clubs are for disagreeing with each other and discussing polar opinions, right?
[editline]16th January 2013[/editline]
[B]
Join a consensus club instead.[/B]
[editline]16th January 2013[/editline]
Like, say, an Internet forum where most 'folks agree with your opinion.[/QUOTE]
I think you misread his post. He was complaining about the presence of a substanceless consensus as opposed to a polar debate. Suggesting him to join a consensus club...doesn't make sense.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39239200]Obama needs to stop appeasing Israel and just be blunt publicly, yeah there will be huge political backlash among the Israeli lobby and their purchased clients (i.e. Congress), but in the long-term, Obama will be remembered very positively for doing so. With Israel's position internationally swiftly losing support (notably in Europe), and with Israel's perpetration of their own self-decaying and self-isolative activities, it will soon be a universal fact to recognize Israel as the next apartheid state.
Obama should jump ship while he can, it'd be a shame to be remembered as one of the last presidents who supported Israel.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't the Israel lobby one of the more powerful ones in Washington? I can imagine Obama wants to avoid opening yet another can of worms, although I completely agree with your points.
I'm just hoping now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election he can be more outspoken and aggressive about Israel's stupidity, maybe even prompting some change (if Israel even remotely listens to anyone it's their big brother US).
Obama is an intelligent man, I very much doubt he supports Israel privately with the amount of shit they have been doing in recent years.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39239305]I think you misread his post. He was complaining about the presence of a substanceless consensus as opposed to a polar debate. Suggesting him to join a consensus club...doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
I got that context in his second post, my mistake.
Here's hoping for that with all the BS stirred by the Republicans, AND the fact he doesn't have a next term to worry about would make his tolerance for stupidity incredibly small.
Time to drop the hammer and call it as he sees it.
[QUOTE=Van-man;39239656]Here's hoping for that with all the BS stirred by the Republicans, AND the fact he doesn't have a next term to worry about would make his tolerance for stupidity incredibly small.
Time to drop the hammer and call it as he sees it.[/QUOTE]
Which is unfortunate since he is pushing his stupid 'guns are evil' agenda
Yeah they do
They want to keep stirring shit up in order to get votes
[QUOTE=Glorbo;39239699]Yeah they do
They want to keep stirring shit up in order to get votes[/QUOTE]
are people really that bad there that they vote for the guy who makes Israel more isolated and increasingly frustrates the world?
why does obama get to decide what israel's best interests are? shouldn't that be up to the israelis?
you dems are a confusing bunch, always saying we shouldn't be involved in foreign affairs but as soon as israel is involved you go batshit.
we should really not be bothered with the affairs of so many different countries, and israel is no exception. We've got enough shit on our plate dealing with domestic issues.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39239709]are people really that bad there that they vote for the guy who makes Israel more isolated and increasingly frustrates the world?[/QUOTE]
TBH much of the shit the politicians in Israel pull seems to be the same that has lead to many dictators rise in power, and eventual downfall.
[QUOTE=Van-man;39239733]TBH much of the shit the politicians in Israel pull seems to be the same that has lead to many dictators rise in power, and eventual downfall.[/QUOTE]
An unnecessary comparison really when such tactics work for any government and while short-term, more than allow a switch in tactics to maintain power longer.
That's mostly what it comes down to though. Netanyahu is playing a short-term game of keeping power by polarising and giving an external enemy. Obama wants them to be playing a long-term game of crafting a lasting peace. The issue is if Netanyahu or anyone in Israeli politics will last long enough to concern themselves with the long game rather than just keeping power for a little longer, because everyone's pretty cutthroat and dickish at the moment.
The only reason Obama is saying this now is because this is his last term and he isn't at the mercy of the Zionist/Israel lobby.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39239732]why does obama get to decide what israel's best interests are? shouldn't that be up to the israelis?
you dems are a confusing bunch, always saying we shouldn't be involved in foreign affairs but as soon as israel is involved you go batshit.
we should really not be bothered with the affairs of so many different countries, and israel is no exception. We've got enough shit on our plate dealing with domestic issues.[/QUOTE]
but you are involved with israel, your financial and political support is the only reason israel still exists (thanks to the israel lobby in the US)
i thought you were trolling for a minute but I think you're just literally retarded
[QUOTE=laserguided;39239663]Which is unfortunate since he is pushing his stupid 'guns are evil' agenda[/QUOTE]
The irony seems lost on you.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39240041]The irony seems lost on you.[/QUOTE]
Did I misunderstand something? He was talking about how Obama won't have to worry about not getting reelected this term. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;39240028]but you are involved with israel, your financial and political support is the only reason israel still exists (thanks to the israel lobby in the US)
i thought you were trolling for a minute but I think you're just literally retarded[/QUOTE] we shouldn't be involved with Israel though, that's what I'm saying.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39239732]why does obama get to decide what israel's best interests are? shouldn't that be up to the israelis?
you dems are a confusing bunch, always saying we shouldn't be involved in foreign affairs but as soon as israel is involved you go batshit.
we should really not be bothered with the affairs of so many different countries, and israel is no exception. We've got enough shit on our plate dealing with domestic issues.[/QUOTE]
They're an autonomous state, but the thing is. Without our constant support and defending of them. They'd be fucking invaded and disarmed by any number of countries, European or Middle Eastern.
funny, because neither does the US in it's relationship with Israel. Obama can say whatever he wants about Israel but it's meaningless if the same level of support still continues.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39243647]They're an autonomous state, but the thing is. Without our constant support and defending of them. They'd be fucking invaded and disarmed by any number of countries, European or Middle Eastern.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that, the IDF is a hell of a military force
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39243906]I don't know about that, the IDF is a hell of a military force[/QUOTE]
Isn't most of the IDF funded by foreign aid?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39243906]I don't know about that, the IDF is a hell of a military force[/QUOTE]
And we also train and fully equip them.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39244009]And we also train and fully equip them.[/QUOTE]
the US fully equips the IDF?
[QUOTE=Lamar;39244151]the US fully equips the IDF?[/QUOTE]
We sell them all of our ammo that is not used within a couple of months, and we also sell them all of our surplus gear. The one exception being their Tank, but it was built with access to western research,etc.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39244009]And we also train and fully equip them.[/QUOTE]
Fully equip them? No the army manfacturs its own weapons such as uzi,tar-21,Iron dome,Merkavas however most aircraft are foreign expect for a few drones,on foreign training i need proof i never heard about it.
[QUOTE=DiCiSpitfire;39244213]Fully equip them? No the army manfacturs its own weapons such as uzi,tar-21,Iron dome,Merkavas however most aircraft are foreign expect for a few drones,on foreign training i need proof i never heard about it.[/QUOTE]
Isn't the majority of it funded by the united states?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.