Political Discussions
Change, the US and Israel.
Posted by polybore • 1/05/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: gazza, Israel, us
The timing of the military action in Gazza gives us the opportunity to speculate on the underlying politics. In particular the relationship between the US and Israel.
Could it be that Israel has taken this military option now because it anticipates that the next President of the US will be less likely to support it in this kind of action?
User Comments
-
Hard to say how Obama will handle the situation, but it's clear that they have a friend in Bush, who sees foreign policy in terms of the naked use of force and has comprehension of what public diplomacy is. "Couse, where rockets showering on civilians are concerned, it's a tricky business. The logic of force can and apparently did become irresistable.-
I meant to say, "has no comprehension" and "'Course." Me learn to spell someday.
-
Indeed I agree that Bush's uncritical support of Israel over the years has not done anyone any good. This has been extremely unfortunate as Islamic fundamentalism is fired by the failure of diplomacy in Palestine.
The waste of time and effort in Iraq and Afghanistan is extraordinary when it is Palestine that should be the focus.
-
-
Yossi Klein Halevi and Michael B. Oren in the LA Times (Yossi Klein Halevi is a senior fellow at the "Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem". Michael B. Oren is a distinguished fellow at the Shalem Center and a professor at the foreign service school of Georgetown University.) Seem to be presenting this as a call for action on Iran.
Ending the post with - "No less crucially, the international community must not allow the Gaza crisis to divert its attention from the imminent -- and ultimate -- threat of a nuclear Iran. Intelligence sources now measure that threat in months rather than years."
"President-elect Barack Obama has declared his intention to confront Iran through diplomacy. Ideally, that process should begin in the aftermath of an Iranian defeat. If Israel is allowed to achieve its goals in Gaza, the Obama administration will be better poised to achieve its goals in Iran."
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-halevi4-2009jan04,0,1975444.s...
"is that Oren is currently in Gaza, in the uniform of the Israeli Defense Force, in which he is a reserve officer whose current duty is as a media officer working to shape perceptions of the Gaza operation. I’d have thought that should have been made clear."
tonykaron.com/2009/01/05/oren-historian-armed/-
The only goal that Israel is going to achieve in Gazza is a whole lot of dead people. It is impossible for Israel to achieve it's stated aim, of stopping rocket attacks, by military force.
That is what I find confusing. Why is Israel taking this action now when they cannot possibly succeed? -
People are easily seduced by the promise of violence. They are too willing to follow the logic that it dictates. Hamas and many Palestinian well wishers find themselves in the same trap.
-
-
I doubt the Israeli offensive into Palestine is political. Our policies aren't going to change overnight on the 20th. But with Obama, there's a chance that diplomacy with Iran may slow the flow of arms to Hammas -- a policy that has the best chance for peace.-
Maybe a freeze on the export of all arms into the region would be a good idea. It is difficult for the US to criticize Iran for supplying arms to the Palestinians while at the same time the US supplies arms to Israel.
I hope that Obama takes a very pragmatic view of US Israeli relations. Israel really needs help from the US and the international community. The years of violence seem to have rendered Israel blinkered in it's outlook, internationally isolated and devoid of effective leadership. -
U.S. electoral realities and strategic interests would never permit an outright freeze, but one has to wonder what leverage we have with Israel. Does the latter have carte blanche?
Of course, let's not forget that it takes two to tango, and Hamas asked Israel for this dance.
-
-
You don't think it possible that Israel fearing and or knowing Hamas was, with the help if Iran, possibly amassing lethal firepower decides to decimate not only Hamas but collaterally (and wrongly) civilians in Gaza. Something which politically benefits only Hamas. Is it not quite likely Israeli hopes to instigate some kind of policy or action regarding Iran from her allies?
-
According to the Geneva Convention, a civilian building can become a legitimate target if hosting a military activity of any kind (even schools and mosques), but...
1. Targeting (on purpose) civilian population not involved in the fighting is considered a crime in Israel and it's against the rules of engagement of the IDF and contradicts its spirit. That's in spite of the fact that the other side does deliberately target our civilians.
2. For every major accident like this there is an investigation conducted. If an IDF soldier will be found guilty in such a crime he will be jailed for a very long time by the Israeli justice system.
3. Civilian casualties in such a dense environment like the city of Gaza (especially when Hamas deliberately fires from within civilian population) is bound to happen, but it is expected from all IDF soldiers to do their best in order to prevent it.
5. Israel can only lose from Palestinian civilian casualties, so it is against its interests.
-
-
I happen across this on my reader an interview with Phyllis Bennis.
therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&ju... ("Historical amnesia and Gaza")
Her book "Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis and Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" is a good read, as is her latest book "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer".
Some of you may be interested in this, so I thought I'd post this here.-
Thank you for posting that link, Cooper.
I agree with her that the US has given overt and tacit support to Israel to do pretty much anything it chooses. And just as Bennis states that the definition of the conflict (and the sorting out of culpability and right/wrong) depends on how broad an historical time frame you consider, I think the geographical frame matters as well. She seems to be looking at the Israel/US/Palestine links, but I am sure that Israel is making a violent statement not only to the Palestinians, but to the broader Middle East. Maybe they are showing a 'preview' of what Iran could expect if it were to attack. Personally, I think they are reading the region wrong (as has the Bush administration) and, rather than deterring attacks, are inviting them.
I noticed this morning that 3 missiles were shot into Israel from Lebanon in the North. -
Israel is about as good at public diplomacy as the US has been under Bush. And like Bush, its leaders don't see how this deficit undermines security.
-
-
I don't think timing has anything to do with it. prez elect obama point blank said on his trip to Isreal "If my house where my 2 daughters were sleeping had been hit by a rocket I would go after them with every thing
I have in my arsonal"
What is really Ironic about that is I said the same exact thing on another thread before hearing his speech he gave while in Isreal. -
Has anyone else not seen that speech?
-
I can confirm...Barack Obama did say that! I saw it.
-
-
good at least someone else has seen it.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
