Muting the Alarm Over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
International Security, Fall 07: "Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"
The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000-06
Quote:
...the prevailing view in the United States is that the Palestinians are overwhelmingly responsible for the continuing violence and political deadlock, and therefore there is little reason or justification for significant changes in the long-standing U.S. policy of nearly unconditional support of Israel.
This article argues that a major explanation for this widespread but erroneous U.S. consensus is the largely uninformed and uncritical mainstream and even elite media coverage in the United States of Israeli policies, a consequence of which is that alarm bells that should be sounded loudly and clearly are muted. In contrast, the debate in Israel is much more far-ranging, and includes a substantial body of dissenting opinion—especially among the elites—arguing that Israel bears a considerable share of the responsibility for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although this is still a minority view, candid criticisms of Israeli policy appear regularly in the Israeli press and news magazines, as well as in public statements by leading scholars, writers, retired military officers, intelligence officials, and even some politicians.
Because public discourse in Israel is often self-critical and vigorous, there is at least the possibility of change in the policies that have thwarted a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians. Even so, most Israeli critics take for granted that the prospect for substantial change in Israeli policies would be greatly enhanced if demanded by the U.S. government and accompanied by serious and sustained pressures. So long as U.S. public discourse about Israel and its policies toward the Palestinians remains so one-sided, however, this is unlikely to occur—no matter who the president is or who controls Congress—because on this issue, there is no discernible difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties or their leading presidential candidates....
Complete 37 page paper at the link.
Israel's Impossible Situation
Before joining SWJ, I had never heard of these Annapolis conferences on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Their conclusions, pointing to the need of "reeducating" the politicians, apparently succeeded although "under wraps", once Obama's current positions towards Israel are in contradiction to his campaign promises. Nonetheless, what had begun still during the Bush administration – the US backed training of PA/ Fatah security forces, supposedly to strengthen Mohamed Abbas as a "Peace Partner" vis-à-vis Israel, has resulted in a backhanded blackmail move against her, paid up by US tax money, and played up by her once "staunch" ally… The text below was published both in the Jerusalem Post and in Caroline Glick's blog on May 28, 2009. Given such picture, this week's threat by the PA of unilaterally proclaiming a "Palestinian State" within two years, inevitably smells like "US sponsored".
Quote:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2009/...s-of-eil-2.php
"America's Betrayal of Israel" or "Israel and the Axis of Evil"
…Beyond Obama's timeline, over the past week, two other developments made it apparent that regardless of what Iran does, the Obama administration will not revise its policy of placing its Middle East emphasis on weakening Israel rather than on stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. First, last Friday, Yediot Aharonot reported that at a recent lecture in Washington, US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, who is responsible for training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis.
Assuming the veracity of Yediot's report,
even more unsettling than Dayton's certainty that within a short period of time these US-trained forces could commence murdering Israelis, is his seeming equanimity in the face of the known consequences of his actions. The prospect of US-trained Palestinian military forces slaughtering Jews does not cause Dayton to have a second thought about the wisdom of the US's commitment to building and training a Palestinian army.
Dayton's statement laid bare the disturbing fact that even though the administration is fully aware of the costs of its approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel, it is still unwilling to reconsider it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates just extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama's Middle East mediator George Mitchell's deputy.
FOUR DAYS after Dayton's remarks were published, senior American and Israeli officials met in London. The reported purpose of the high-level meeting was to discuss how Israel will abide by the administration's demand that it prohibit all construction inside Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.
What was most notable about the meeting was
its timing. By holding the meeting the day after North Korea tested its bomb and after Iran's announcement that it rejects the US's offer to negotiate about its nuclear program, the administration demonstrated that regardless of what Iran does, Washington's commitment to putting the screws on Israel is not subject to change. All of this of course is music to the mullahs' ears. Between America's impotence against their North Korean allies and its unshakable commitment to keeping Israel on the hot seat, the Iranians know that they have no reason to worry about Uncle Sam.
As for Israel, it is a good thing that the IDF has scheduled the largest civil defense drill in the country's history for next week. Between North Korea's nuclear test, Iran's brazen bellicosity and America's betrayal, it is clear that the government can do nothing to impact Washington's policies toward Iran. No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran.
Today Israel stands alone against the mullahs and their bomb. And this, like the US's decision to stand down against the Axis of Evil, is not subject to change.
Not to beat a dead horse,
or Ms Glick too much, but IPF ran Yediot Acharonoth's profile on LTG Dayton (the 22 May link in my prior post). The last paragraph in that quote from YA does read (which is a comment by the journalist, not LTG Dayton):
Quote:
Israel can no longer continue to exist in a state of multiple personalities. Either it flows with the American policy that leads to a Palestinian state, or it ceases cooperation with Dayton. You can't have it both ways. This is the perfect example of lack of any planning on the part of the prime minister or those surrounding him. If you don't want to go with the American flow, and their regional policy is unsuited for you, why wait for the battalions to form into an army which will eventually turn its weapons against you?
It is entirely possible that other parts of the YA article (or a comment to it) contained the "Judea-Samaria 2-year" language as an expansion on this last sentence by the journalist.
My point was that I could not find language by LTG Dayton to that effect.
Glad to see you are in the middle. :)