Netanyahu's Huge F#ck You to Obama

So the Israeli government decided to announce that it will construct 1,600 new apartments in East Jerusalem at the precise moment that Joe Biden was visiting the country trying kick start the peace process.  This is a huge fuck you to the Obama Administration, a blatant slap that makes clear that Netanyahu intends to do whatever he wants in terms of settlements, regardless of any fuss from Washington.  

This should be viewed as the opportunity to change the dynamic in this deeply unhealthy relationship in a big way.  The United States should take immediate punitive steps against Israel for this move in the hopes of bringing down the Netanyahu government.  Were I the president I would suspend all weapons sales to Israel, suspend all cooperation with the Israeli military, suspend loan guarantees if possible, and indicate that the U.S. will sit on its hands if resolutions are passed by the Security Council condemning the settlements.   

Such a series of actions would 1) restore some credibility to the American role as honest broker in the Middle East; 2) scare the piss out of the Israeli body politic; and 3) most importantly, establish once and for all that the United States has interests that are quite different from those of the Israeli right. 

I spent most of my life being a pretty strong advocate for Israel.  However, the events of recent years have left me to believe that right wing Israeli governments are bent on a path that is inimical to American interests in the world.  Establishing some significant distance between the U.S. and Israel would be in our national interests. 

Alas, I doubt that Obama and Hillary have the stomach or the inclination to bite this off right now. 

Comments

[oddjob]

I also doubt they do, even as I agree with Sully that Israel's present path will put it on South Africa's path to apartheid, a circumstance it can't afford under any circumstances.

[Mike James]

Israel considers all of Jerusalem it's own, not part of the "west bank". It was always like this, it only became an issue when Obama came to power and started to insist on a "freeze", including Jerusalem. The US might as well give back much of the south back to Mexico if its so self-righteous.

Also, Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Israel, it started with American presence in Saudi Arabia (holy land for Osama) not Israel. Every terrorist likes to mention them for street cred. Osama started to rebel after the events of the first Gulf War. So stopping Israel would do nothing in this respect. Spain was no friend of Israel, yet they were still hit years ago, changed the elections really, so it actually worked..

The US does what is in it's interest, always and forever. They sell Arms to Egypt (remember, they get free funds too...even though no one knows what will happen after Mubarak), Saudi Arabia (big friend of Israel and the US, how many of them were in on 9/11 again?), and almost every other potential future enemy of Israel (Russia fills the gap). Oh and this included pushing Israel to sign the Oslo accords which brought Arafat in, and resulted in the deaths of thousands of Israelis and Palestinians. They use, or try to use, Israel as a lever when they needs a favor with the Arab world (to "restrain" Israel). Thus, it seems a rightward shift resulted, and Israelis are tired of being what is best for them. The Irony is that all those "settlements" employ Arabs as their workforce (they actually build them, work in them, look it up).

[Mike James]

How can Israel be an apartheid when Arabs in Israel have full rights (East Jerusalem included if they wish, but not the rest of the "West Bank")? They even have vehemently anti-Israeli, Israeli-Arab (ironic), parliament ("Knesset") members. They spew anti-Israeli rhetoric while being paid by Israelis. There is a reason why even Muslims from Sudan run to Israel (through Egypt no less). Look it up.

[Nelson]

I don't buy Mike James's point that settlements are good because arabs are employed in their construction (and no I own't look it up), but I actually take his point about Israel and Al-Qaueda. I never bought into the idea that establishing a Palestinian state will really have a substantial effect on radical-Islmamism. Settling the dispute is a laudable goal in and of itself, but not the means to an end that the Daniel Levy and Reza Aslan types of the world say. Apart from that, Sic C, do you really believe the U.S. can ever be seen as an honest broker in that region? Has a superpower, albeit one waning in influence, ever been seen as a neutral party? Moreover, why does the U.S. really need to be one? Isn't one of the benefits of the U.S.'s decline in stature that "let China sort it out" is a viable option? How much worse could anyone else do?

[Sir Charles]

Mike,

I searched in vain for a reference to al Qaeda in my post. Moreover, you seem to have missed the central point of what I was saying. U.S. foreign policy should be for the benefit of Americans, not Israelis. Israel can make whatever claims it wishes -- if it wants to be upfront about its goal of illegally annexing territory, so be it. But I don't want my tax dollars used to support that effort and I am pretty clear that it is not helpful to my country.

As for the jobs argument -- really. I guess the antebellum south was a paradise for black Africans, giving as it did an assurance of full employment.
Nelson,

As I have written about several times before, I don't accept the premise of the America in decline argument. The U.S. remains uniquely situated in terms of its economic and military strength and its ties in the region. It also retains a unique position in the world in terms of its stature. When people in the developing world clamor to move to China I may reassess. (China also has no particular interest in promoting peace in the region.)

The notion that the U.S.'s complicity in the Israel occupation and de facto annexation of large parts of the Palestinian territories does not negatively affect our standing in the Islamic world is wishful thinking at best.

[low-tech cyclist]

I've pretty much given up on Israel. When the victim turns bully, there's a limit to how long one can excuse the bullying due to past victimization. That limit has long since been passed.

Israel and Egypt are two of our biggest foreign aid recipients, which if I recall correctly was essentially a bribe to get them to sign onto the Camp David accords.

Since the day has long passed when Israel has to worry about being invaded by its neighbors, I can't see the logic in maintaining this bribe anymore, regardless of Israel's behavior. (Or Egypt's, for that matter.) But given Israel's treatment of the inhabitants of the West Bank (apartheid) and Gaza (an open-air prison), I feel even more justified in advocating that we pull the plug on aid to Israel.

[Nelson]

I suppose I differ in that I don't really see what credibility the U.S. has left. You can fall short of the most cynical and conspiratorial views (aipac controls America) and still see that America has had little interest in promoting human rights if it clashed with U.S. perceived interests. As for China not having a stake in middle east peace, well, that's the point. Why is middle east peace a sacrosanct goal of U.S. foreign policy? I hope the Palestinians have a state and that the Israelis can live in peace and security. I just don't see either of those as national priorities much less the most pressing foreign policy item on Obama's agenda. I don't believe it's hopeless, but I do believe that both Turkey and India are better suited for dealing with this particular task.

[Corvus]

I love how fresh new commenters show up whenever you guys address a particularly controversial subject.

Personally, I think it's going to come down to a one-state solution. That's not my hope or anything: I don't really care how this dispute is resolved, since I am not Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, or Muslim. I got no skin in the game other than seeing this resolved. This might as well be a conflict in the Balkans, as far as I am concerned.

And from that perspective, I just don't see there being a separation of these two countries. The Israelis are becoming less and less inclined towards peace, and are actually moving away from the roadmap, building more and more settlements. It's obvious, to me at least, that in some quarters this is part of a negotiating strategy for a final separation, and in others a tactic to make a final separation impossible. Eventually, the West Bank will be such a Swiss cheese that extrication of settlements will be impossible. At some point, the Palestinians will realize this, and that the only thing keeping their situation from being considered Apartheid is the pretension that there is a two-state peace settlement coming at some point in the future, thus making the territories "occupied" and not "part of Israel." This will lead to them demanding not their own state, but full annexation and equal voting rights, which, due to the by then obvious failure peace process in the rest of the world (I bet the rest of the world will figure this out long before the Palestinians, since we won't have any emotional connection to the idea of a Palestinian state), will lead to widespread support for such a change. The charge of Apartheid will be leveled, and openly, in Europe, and then in America, because American's don't like apartheid. And at point, Israel will lose all international support, and be forced to come to some compromise. Since a two-state solution will then really be impossible, due to the settlers, A single state it will be. After that point, Israel will probably be no more, because I doubt the combined majority of Israli Arabs and Palestinians will be comfortable will that name.

[Sir Charles]

Nelson,

The US interest in the Middle East is basically related to the degree to which the conflict there has destabilized the largest oil producing region in the world. It's that simple. And I'm not making the old "blood for oil" reductivist argument, but simply noting that if this conflict were occurring on the periphery of the world economy it would have a whole lot less salience.

I think if India wants to tackle a destabilizing world problem, it might turn its attention to Kashmir.

The ability of the U.S. to project its military power into the region makes it unique among all actors on the world stage -- even if that hasn't worked out so well.

[minstrel hussain boy]

i am currently reading edward luttwak's "the grand strategy of the byzantine empire" which is a follow up to his book on rome. the byzantines managed to survive in that very region, and prosper for nearly 800 years.

they did it mainly through diplomacy. their intelligence network was, for the time, incredible. armed with intentions that were self serving, like every nation/state, but also realizing that their self interest would best be served by understanding and helping the self interests of their neighboring powers.

the problem with the middle east is extremely complex. there will never be a quick and easy fix to it, hell, it might even be unfixable.

i support the right of israel to exist. and, to exist there. having a bolt hole there for jews, given history's record, falls under the listing of "not too fucking much to ask."

still, i can't shake the feeling and sense that had i been born a palestinian i would be a rabble rousing, rubble and bomb throwing son of a bitch.

it's one of those situations where there ain't no good guys, not a lot of conceivable good outcomes, but, we are duty and honor bound to give it our best efforts to acheive something approaching fair.

the situation in gaza especially needs to be addressed. the israeli blockade is killing people on a daily basis.

it's also telling that folks have been fighting over the gaza since the days of ramses I, and sennacherabib.

the ability to project military power, and project is a very apt term chuck, is something that any good show folks can relate with. if you project, you simply must focus. we've had lots of projection with no, or little focus. no wonder there aren't any clear fucking pictures.

[oddjob]

The neo-cons don't do focus, although they like to think they do.

[JMG]

The U.S. will never, ever, ever take any action at all that might be interpreted as in opposition to any Israeli action. They could nuke Tehran, and Obama would say (as any American President would say) "Gee, that's too bad."
This dynamic will never change -- maybe $8 a gallon gas would change it a little, but frankly, Israel's supporters here can stand that gaff.

[buy generic viagra]

Ramses I was the founding Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt's 19th dynasty. The dates for his short reign are not completely known but the time-line of late 1292-1290 BC is frequently cited as well as 1295-1294 BC[4]. While Ramesses I was the founder of the 19th Dynasty, in reality his brief reign marked the transition between the reign of Horemheb who had stabilised Egypt and the rule of the powerful Pharaohs of this dynasty, in particular Seti I and Ramesses II, who would bring Egypt up to new heights of imperial power.