Did Petraeus briefing set stage for U.S.-Israel spat?
(See Update below).
Mark Perry, writing in Foreign Policy, reports that American anger at Israel’s position on settlements is driven at least in part by military concerns. By Perry’s account — a version that Pentagon and administration sources seem to be confirming rather than challenging — the change dates back to a January briefing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by a team from CENTCOM, or Central Command, the command responsible for a region from the Middle East east to Pakistan and Kazahkstan.
“The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned (Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael) Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that (U.S. special envoy George) Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) “too old, too slow … and too late.”
The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus’s instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. “Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling,” a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. “America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding.”
As Perry tells it, that briefing set the stage for Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Jerusalem; the announcement on the day of Biden’s arrival that 1,600 new apartments would be built in East Jerusalem was not the major cause of the breach, but rather the straw that broke the back of an already overstrained camel.
“But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus’s Mullen briefing: “This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.” Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: “The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel’s actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism.” The message couldn’t be plainer: Israel’s intransigence could cost American lives.
That’s fascinating in a number of ways:
1.) As Perry notes, the stance that Petraeus took is not merely strategic but political in nature, stretching the bounds of his role. Furthermore, the general is not an impetuous sort. He thinks things through very carefully, so he no doubt understood fully the gravity of the message he was sending. That’s also why the White House in turn has taken it so seriously.
2.) “The message couldn’t be plainer: Israel’s intransigence could cost American lives.” That’s the core of the issue. Cast in those terms, the debate becomes much more difficult for the current Israeli government and for those in this country who defend Israel’s pro-settlement policies. And the fact that this message is coming from the U.S. military only compounds its impact.
3.) Reading between the lines of Perry’s piece and its later clarifications, there was a clear decision at high levels, apparently from within the Pentagon, to make this story public. If so, the leak was itself a policy decision, an effort by the military to throw itself publicly behind both the Petraeus warning and the sterner line taken in response by the Obama administration.
UPDATE: In prepared testimony before Congress today, Petraeus essentially confirmed the Foreign Policy report. Addressing what he called the “major drivers of instability, inter-state tensions, and conflict … (that) can serve as root causes of instability or as obstacles to security,” the very first one he listed was:
“Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”
Petraeus also pointed out that progress in Middle East peace talks could seriously weaken the power of Iran:
“A credible U.S. effort on Arab-Israeli issues that provides regional governments and populations a way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the disputes would undercut Iran’s policy of militant “resistance,” which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit. Additionally, progress on the Israel-Syria peace track could disrupt Iran’s lines of support to Hamas and Hizballah…. As such, progress toward resolving the political disputes in the Levant, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict, is a major concern for CENTCOM.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
373 comments Add your comment
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
8:27 pm
Del–
I have to agree with you on that one. It’s something the State of Israel knows, whether the Jews of America want to accept it at face value or not. I am reminded of an ecumenical conference I was at when in college. The fundamentalist had “gone off” on their theological requirement that there must be a secular state in Israel for the Temple to be rebuilt and the Jews to call for the “return” of the Messiah. The Jewish participants countered rather vociferously and an argument not-quite-so-ecumenical appeared in the offing. The cabbalist rabbi rose to speak, “when the Messiah gets here, I don’t think it’s going to greatly matter whether it’s for the first or the second time. He’s going to be p*ssed.” Pretty much my line of thought.
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
9:10 pm
So, where did everybody go? I don’t want to be left hanging up there with that comment…
Del
March 16th, 2010
9:19 pm
josef,
Just checked back in. believe it or not at my ripe old age I have a a 3 year old daughter among grandkids. We had to get her ready for bed. I’m not one to preach fire and brim stone but I think we’ve turned away from God and America is feeling the pain.
Del
March 16th, 2010
9:34 pm
Well, josef it look like maybe the Rapture of the Blog has finally come. Just kidding of course but it’s getting close to taps. Take care and good night.
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
9:38 pm
Del–
As I said to Dusty last p.m., I tend to get a little on the introspective side this time of year as to what “all that” means in the historical and cultural sphere of existence (the spiritual comes in the fall). We have reached a point in our society where one feels almost apologetic if one dares to call oneself a believer. I have no idea what G-d is. Bruno made the point the other night that Maimonides said that we can only begin to define H-m (bowing here to the Judeo-Christian tradition of the third person singular masculine) by what H- is not. That said, in my worldview, there must be S-mething there greater than us. See it as one will. In essence, to me, it is that J-dge of how we conducted ourselves while in our time and place and did we leave it better for our having passed through. In moving away from that, we have left ourselves rudderless. I can accept the nonbelievers contention that they do the right thing because it is the right thing, but my question is, and Wh- tells you what is the right thing? There are all matter of “answers,” but there seems to be a fear of using the word “G-d” to refer to that “it…”
And, then again, it’s probably just the wine a’talking…
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 16th, 2010
9:46 pm
That said, in my worldview, there must be S-mething there greater than us.
How anyone could watch the wind blow, a river flow, waves crash in from the ocean, a corn stalk pop up out of the ground, a calf stand up, and millions of others things, and think it all happened by accident is beyond my comprehension.
I can accept the nonbelievers contention that they do the right thing because it is the right thing, but my question is, and Wh- tells you what is the right thing?
And if there is only the here and now and nothing to answer to later, what would make anything wrong if you could get away with it?
That’s not wine talking, just me.
Del
March 16th, 2010
9:49 pm
Josef,
I believe from my own experience that everyone who has an open mind and heart will be reached by God at some point in their lives and the experience will be very real. Sometimes his reach might seem harsh at the time but his intention is based in his love for all of us regardless of who we are and what our sins may be.
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
9:59 pm
Hillbilly..
How much I agree with that! I stand in awe of eveything from the intricacies of everything from the leaves springing from the bud to the contemplation of the immensity of the universe from gazing at the stars. How could I possibly consider myself so bold as to be able to explain it all?
When my grandfather, may his memory be blessed, was trying to teach me evolution (the scientific) and the creation (the poetic) he said of the former “and what brought to life those single cell amoeba that came in time to be us?”
One of my favorite biblical quotes for this contemplation is “Be still and know that I am G-d.” We need to take that time to be still…jus’ sayin’, and, no this is not the wine either!
Scout
March 16th, 2010
10:03 pm
Mabus :
I have a life long friend that was an office on the USS Liberty in 1967. He was wounded. 34 sailors died and to this day there has never been an official Congressional inquiry.
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 16th, 2010
10:05 pm
I believe from my own experience that everyone who has an open mind and heart will be reached by God at some point in their lives and the experience will be very real.
My belief, and that of my denomination, is that He will come to each of us at least once. It’s up to us to accept Him.
“Be still and know that I am G-d.”
To me, it’s pure conceit to think there is nothing greater than us or that we can ever understand everything.
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
10:05 pm
Del–
I am reminded by your post of a Lilly Tomlin routine when her bag lady says, “Why is it when you talk to G-d, you’re praying; but when G-d talks to you, you’re a paranoid schizophrenic.”
In relation to the dual nature of G-d and why bad things happen to good people, I consider myself blessed to have been born into a faith and a tradition which not only permits, but demands, that we question G-d on this.
Did you catch “G-d on Trial” on PBS? If not, it’s accessible now on Youtube…
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
10:15 pm
Hillbilly–
That is the word, “conceit.” To me, the very idea that whatever it is can be “known” is the very antithesis of the human experience. The search for knowledge is what has taken us, as I often say, from the trees to the stars. To give up that wonder is to give up life itself, the way I see it. I listen to some hereabouts and elsewhere and I think, “no wonder you’re so bitter. You have all the answers and no further raison d’etrre. Stick your head in an oven and call it quits…”
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
10:21 pm
Hillbilly–
Not a Baptist myself, I nonetheless accept the concept of the epiphany…I just don’t limit it to once. I think it should come with every breath we draw…Granddaddy taught that it is not so much do we accept G-d, but does G-d accept us…
TnGelding
March 16th, 2010
10:22 pm
It’a about time:
“First lady to food makers: Hurry up on healthy food”
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Food manufacturers need to work faster to re-formulate and re-package food so that it is healthier for kids, U.S. first lady Michelle Obama said on Tuesday.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100316/hl_nm/us_obesity_obama
What a breath of fresh air.
Which country is our better friend, Israel or China? And why are Jay and the others trying to stir up trouble with either?
Bosch
March 16th, 2010
10:32 pm
josef,
Nice conversation you guys are having….hate to butt in, but I’ve always thought of praying as talking to God, and being quite (or meditating) is an opportunity for God to talk to you. I’ve had this conversation with Doggone and Bruno before, but I don’t think people know how to pray anymore – it’s like a Christmas list – they just ask for things or ask for things to be good in their life. Sometimes I think we don’t understand the good unless we have some of the bad. I also don’t like it when people ask me to pray for a particular person. It seems rather selfish – like God will somehow favor them if they get enough prayers – and if it doesn’t work out, then what? You didn’t pray enough? I’ve always thought that was kind of weird, and it makes me uncomfortable.
Anywho….my two cents for what it’s worth.
Del,
Grandkids and a three year old? Way to go. I have a new found appreciation for you.
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 16th, 2010
10:33 pm
Josef @ 10:21
I agree with what you are saying; it’s a hard concept for me to explain, though. Speaking just for me, what I mean is that He will present Himself to you at least once. If you reject Him, He may present Himself again or not. It may be many times in life but if you reject Him, eventually it will be for the final time. Hopefully that makes sense.
And as for Him accepting us, that opens up the Eternal Security can of worms. I think that contains two parts, first you have to accept Him, then the second point being that once you accept Him, you have to go forth and walk the walk. It’s not enough to say you’ve accepted Him and now you’re home free. I think a lot of folks overlook that second part. That’s my opinion and everyone is free to have their own. It’s for Him to judge and not me.
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 16th, 2010
10:37 pm
Sometimes I think we don’t understand the good unless we have some of the bad
I look at it as a parent/child relationship. When we were children our parents often did things that we didn’t like and we didn’t understand but it was what was best for us. And speaking from experience, sometimes something bad can show you what’s really important. We all need an attitude adjustment from time to time.
Bosch
March 16th, 2010
10:42 pm
Hillbilly,
Yeah, with three teenagers and three cats, I am more times than not, in my own house, the stupidest person alive.
Bosch
March 16th, 2010
10:49 pm
This kind of thing irritates me:
Law would require drug test for unemployment assistance
http://www.ajc.com/news/law-would-require-drug-376097.html
I think if the lawmakers want that for others, since they too receive state money, they should be drug tested themselves, and any business owner that receives a tax cut….same thing. Why single out one group of people who receive state money for drug testing?
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
10:49 pm
Bosch–
Not butting in at all…this is a conversation I believe we should have more of…Granddaddy always said that G-d is not Santa Claus. It’s much what JFK said in the secular, “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country…” I agree entirely with what you say about meditating. On the lighter side, I have plenty of experiences where G-d spoke to me and told me, essentially, “get over your cheap imported self, Girlfriend…” G-d being personal, H- speaks to me in my language and frame of reference. There are those didactic among us who would consider that foregoing as sacrilege, but…
Hillbilly–
Moving into the Christian frame of reference, “salvation” as an act solely of faith has always been an approach with which I have had qualms,,,I, personally, believe that we are “saved” by our thoughts, actions and deeds…I have a problem with those who would teach that unless the individual accepts the dogmata and creeds of this, that or the other “brand” of faith is d*mned just seems to me to be, again your word, “conceit.”
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 16th, 2010
10:50 pm
Bosch @ 10:42
But at least you are smart enough to know it.
I used to know a man (he’s passed on now) who told me, “I’m crazy as hell and I know it, but there’s a lot of people who are crazy as hell and don’t know it, and that’s what causes most of the problems in the world.”
Bosch
March 16th, 2010
10:52 pm
josef,
“I, personally, believe that we are “saved” by our thoughts, actions and deeds…”
TESTIFY!!
Bosch
March 16th, 2010
10:54 pm
Off to dream world, hopefully – pleasant evening!
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 16th, 2010
10:56 pm
Josef
In my view, salvation is part one, then comes part two, which is to go forth and lead a Christ-like life. Now any human is going to fall short in that attempt but it’s the effort and the sincerity of the effort that counts. He knows what’s in our hearts and that’s a large part of what we’ll be judged on.
And sort of off-topic but sort of on topic too. I happened to hear a little thing today from Brother Dave Gardner. He said something like, “It’s not really important to watch what I say, what’s important is to watch what I think.” He was always really good at being subtle when he made a serious point.
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
March 16th, 2010
10:57 pm
Matilda
**WHY ON EARTH would they vote for someone whose promises would not be good for them? Just curious as to your theory.**
If a person is not self motivated and needs the assistance of the government, Republicans wouldn’t want your vote. It’s better to you stick to the people who want government deeply involved in your life.
Remember the old Pro-abortionsit mantra: keep the government out of my body? I guess this new health care plan will put a stop to that way of thinking once and for all.
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
March 16th, 2010
11:00 pm
Amvet
**as in American Jews voting against (almost always) their sorry asses.*8
Are you proud of the way the democrats have treated Blacks? But Blacks still support them 95%.
The Democrat’s political machine is just that good. They are brilliant politicians. They just suck as actual leaders.
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
March 16th, 2010
11:08 pm
Paul
**They’re rolling Student Loan legislation into the health reform vote…….
talk about grasping….**
Nobody is grasping. Whoever controls student loans controls the future of every college and University in the country.
Do you want to go to Bob Jones University? We don’t think that Bob jones has the right outlook toward a person’s personal freedoms. Sorry, your loan is refused.
So you want to go to Berkley? Say you want to major in anti-American studies? How much money do you think you will need?
Do you really think that this won’t happen?
This is after his first year. In three more years, we won ‘t recognize this country.
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
11:14 pm
Bosch–
“TESTIFY!”
Granddaddy always said that Mama was scared by a Baptist while whe was carrying me!
Hillbilly–
That “what’s in our hearts” is the fundamental of what I was taught. All us Southerners hereabouts like to throw in a “bless her/his heart,” but there’s a great deal of what belief is all about in that. A lot of folks here and elsewhere chide me for being so, well, “tolerant” of what some might be saying which I “ought” to take offense at, but I am far, far more interested in what is in the heart. I’m going to bring up Del here (in case you’re still here!). I was “supposed” to have been offended by something he said one evening. I wasn’t. He had already established well with me what was in his “heart” and what I had seen there was something, I hate to use such a word here and he’ll probably not be particulary complimented by my word choice, but something precious in the true meaning of the word.
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 16th, 2010
11:23 pm
Del, Josef, Bosch
Enjoyed the discussion. Hopefully, I get my points across well enough that y’all can understand them, whether you agree with them or not. As for taking offense, it’s all in the track record of how somebody has treated you. You can pretty well tell when somebody is trying to get a rise out of you or whatever. And we all say things we either didn’t mean or didn’t express the way we wanted to. Everytime I see some politician fall on the “gotcha” sword, I’m thankful all my past ramblings aren’t on tape somewhere.
Time to go, night all.
Dusty
March 16th, 2010
11:31 pm
Josef,
I think I have fallen in love…..with your grandfather. What a wise one was he.
Yes, this conversation is good. Our church and Martin Luther emphasze grace, that unmerited divine assistance given to us. It is good to see how grace has come to those who speak here. Seems, when we ask and wonder we get answers even in silence. It does bring peace (even in the storms we encounter). So I say” Peace” quite sincerely to you and HillBilly and go to lay my head down. May the meditations of our hearts rest well within us.
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
11:36 pm
As much as I’d like to stay and chat, tomorrow is the St. Pat’s Day dance fot the little ones and I have to chaperone…oy! I really enjoyed this latter part of the evening…a sense of balance…y’all sleep in peace…
And JAY–I hope you’re happy…see where it wound up? I’m happy…will sleep in peace knowing that there is the possibility of living in peace and harmony…thanks for the opportunity to get to that point, and I mean that no sarcasm intended……
josef nix
March 16th, 2010
11:39 pm
DUSTY–
Thank you and thank you on behalf of Granddaddy–would that I could be half the man that he was…
101 Airborne
March 16th, 2010
11:48 pm
@ Paul on the ‘viability’ of maintaining an Airborne-qualified force…
Sorry I have been out of the loop most of the day–I’ve been at work too.
Well, let’s see…to offer a correction to your 3:21 post–there has been (as others have already mentioned) other large-scale airborne operations conducted by the U.s. Army since WWII:
-Operation ‘Urgent Fury’ in Grenada, 1983
-Operation ‘Just Cause’ in Panama, 1989
-The ‘aborted at the last-minute’ planned invasion of Haiti in 1994 (When GEN Raul Cedras caved in at the last moment, as the lead C-141B’s (with the DRB from the 82nd Airborne) were roughly 10 minutes out from the drop zone.
- The newly-reconstituted 173rd Airborne Brigade’s combat jump into Bashur Drop Zone, in Mosul (Northern Iraq) in 2003.
All of these ‘Combat Jumps’ underscore the necessity for a capability that is still to this day considered vitally important within the US Military–’Forced Entry’ Capability.
On the tactical level, there will always be a situation that in order to gain numerical superiority, commanders must be able to mass a suficient amount of ‘combat power’ at the right time and the right location. Bringing in large numbers of troops overland by truck, or as you have suggested, by helicopter or Osprey, often are not practical.
First off, airlanding troops (by whatever other type of airframe) requires a planned (and defendable) airstrip for operations, planned re-fueling locations (along the air-route corridor), and an extensive logistical tail for maintenance issues (and with rotary-wing aircraft, they DO happen). Not to mention that the number of helicopters it takes to airlift just ONE infantry rifle battalion (640 soldiers, roughly), not including attached “slice” elements, is well over 30 Blackhawks (UH-60’s) and a number of larger Chinooks (CH-47’s). The sheer size of a landing zone large enough to handle that amount of aircraft is usually non-existant. Extremely large airborne units (Brigade sized) can deposit a huge volume of troops literally onto the objective and continually reinforce it with subsequent drops (providing the DZ is secure and no enemy AA).
When the cost of a single helicopter is in the millions, the risk of possibly losing multiple aircraft from groundfire in a unprepared HLZ (helicopter landing zone), amplified by the time it takes to land, unass the troops, then bring in the next chalk–quite often devolves into a course of action not easily endorsed by the senior commander on the ground.
Amassing ample combat power from the start is key to any invasion plan. The forced-entry capability of units like the 82nd Airborne Division, 173rd Airborne Brigade, and the 75th Ranger Regiment (all 3 battalions) is just what the doctor ordered. They are trained and equipped to execute a ‘vertical envelopment’ of the battlespace with little to no preparation of their landing site; close with and destroy the enemy forces arrayed against them; and remain in position for up to 72 hours until they are relieved by a larger, more well-equipped force brought into the area of operations by other, more conventional means.
The concept of airborne operations may seem antiquated, yes; however the need or viability of such a technique in today’s non-linear battlefield demands we retain it among our current force-projection capabilities.
We don’t keep this because we’re traditionally-minded softies or that we love handing out jump-pay, or that chicks just melt when they see a paratrooper in bloused, shiny Corcoran jump boots–we do this because it is needed.
Take some time off from your job and go out to Fort Bragg and visit the division public-affairs office, or better yet, the post museum. Talk to soldiers. Go find a jumpmaster and ask him to explain the ‘need’ for the US to hold onto a truly remarkable innovation of warfare. See what you find out and get back to me…
Dorn
March 17th, 2010
12:39 am
Blaming Israel for suicide bombs in Kabul? What next? Do you really think that pressure on Israel, followed by one-sided Israeli concessions, will help the US?
On the contrary, it will show that the US can be persuaded to sell out friends – and simply encourage further terrorism.
It is the same reasoning that led Chamberlain to sell out Czechoslovakia to Hitler, and brought World War II.
Dorn
March 17th, 2010
12:41 am
The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial said it best:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121710380216280.html
In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has endorsed “healthy relations” between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the U.S. of “colonialism,” and publicly apologized to Moammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for “a jihad” against Switzerland.
When it comes to Israel, however, the Administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation. On a visit to Israel last week, Vice President Joe Biden condemned an announcement by a mid-level Israeli official that the government had approved a planning stage?the fourth out of seven required?for the construction of 1,600 housing units in north Jerusalem. Assuming final approval, no ground will be broken on the project for at least three years.
But neither that nor repeated apologies from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prevented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?at what White House sources ostentatiously said was the personal direction of President Obama?from calling the announcement “an insult to the United States.” White House political chief David Axelrod got in his licks on NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday, lambasting Israel for what he described as “an affront.”
Since nobody is defending the Israeli announcement, least of all an obviously embarrassed Israeli government, it’s difficult to see why the Administration has chosen this occasion to spark a full-blown diplomatic crisis with its most reliable Middle Eastern ally. Mr. Biden’s visit was intended to reassure Israelis that the Administration remained fully committed to Israeli security and legitimacy. In a speech at Tel Aviv University two days after the Israeli announcement, Mr. Biden publicly thanked Mr. Netanyahu for “putting in place a process to prevent the recurrence” of similar incidents.
The subsequent escalation by Mrs. Clinton was clearly intended as a highly public rebuke to the Israelis, but its political and strategic logic is puzzling. The U.S. needs Israel’s acquiescence in the Obama Administration’s increasingly drawn-out efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear bid through diplomacy or sanctions. But Israel’s restraint is measured in direct proportion to its sense that U.S. security guarantees are good. If Israel senses that the Administration is looking for any pretext to blow up relations, it will care much less how the U.S. might react to a military strike on Iran.
As for the West Bank settlements, it is increasingly difficult to argue that their existence is the key obstacle to a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel withdrew all of its settlements from Gaza in 2005, only to see the Strip transform itself into a Hamas statelet and a base for continuous rocket fire against Israeli civilians.
Israeli anxieties about America’s role as an honest broker in any diplomacy won’t be assuaged by the Administration’s neuralgia over this particular housing project, which falls within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries and can only be described as a “settlement” in the maximalist terms defined by the Palestinians. Any realistic peace deal will have to include a readjustment of the 1967 borders and an exchange of territory, a point formally recognized by the Bush Administration prior to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. If the Obama Administration opts to transform itself, as the Europeans have, into another set of lawyers for the Palestinians, it will find Israeli concessions increasingly hard to come by.
That may be the preferred outcome for Israel’s enemies, both in the Arab world and the West, since it allows them to paint Israel as the intransigent party standing in the way of “peace.” Why an Administration that repeatedly avers its friendship with Israel would want that is another question.
Then again, this episode does fit Mr. Obama’s foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it’s Israel’s turn.
Dorn
March 17th, 2010
12:43 am
For years the Arab world has been saying “If only Israel…” while doing their best to destroy the tiny country. Now they have persuaded a US general too, it seems. The end result of such myopic and illogical conclusions will be disastrous for the US.
Dorn
March 17th, 2010
12:54 am
If Mahmoud Abbas wanted peace, he wouldn;t have rejected the sweeping concessions from former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert. That brought down Olmert and led to Netanyhau’s election.
If Mahmoud Abbas wanted peace, he wouldn’t demand resettlement of refugees in Israel, but in the West Bank. But then he might have to recognize that there were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries.
If Abbas wanted peace, he wouldn’t name a major computer center (funded partly with US money) and a square after Dalal Mugrabi, who killed 37 Israeli civilians and many children – on the 32nd anniversary of the event.
But then, nothing the Palestinians or Arab world say or do, get picked up by the media. They get a free ride, Israel is constantly horsewhipped.
Jonathan
March 17th, 2010
3:57 am
I have a truly wonderful and ingenious idea!
Lets build a new Israel on top of Chicago and the Chicagoland area. Next to the lake, it looks just like Israel.
Let’s evict most of the existing Chicagoans and cram 1 million rich ones into the Peoria slums, a couple million more we’ll put into refugee camps in the cornfields nearby and keep them there until at least beyond 2070 AD. Then we’ll steal everything they own.
The rest of the Chicagoans we’ll cram into the into the slums in South New Israel (old Chicago)
Now, if any one gets p|ssed off that their land, homes, jobs and way of life is stolen for unending decades or if of the Chicagoans get enraged that their parents are living in refugee camps for 50 years and become “evil terrorists” we’ll just rain hellfire missiles down on their camps or slums constantly, bulldoze their slums, send in Abrams tanks for a turkey shoot of women and children, hopeful not more than 3000 dead and 10,000 severely injured per incident should do just fine to keep the Chicagoans contained.
We’ll call the frisky Chicagoans who don’t accept their new plight and fight for their people “evil terrorists” and we’ll call anyone who sends money to help them terrorists too!
It’s ok…it’s God’s will.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Have A Drink On Us, obozo!
March 17th, 2010
5:33 am
WASHINGTON — Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is unlikely to face trial because he probably would be killed before being captured, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday. -Urinal
I’m sure that Holder has discussed this with him, just sayin..
Sheik, Brother obozo thinks it would be better if you were not taken alive, he’s just sayin…
josef nix
March 17th, 2010
6:59 am
Johnathan–
@ 3:57
You forgot to add, though, kill off as many as you can catch, hold on for a century or so, shed a few crocodile tears over what your forebearers did to the dispossessed, call it ancient history and everything will be hunky-dory.
It’s the American way.
jt
March 17th, 2010
7:19 am
This just in.
It seems as if one CAN point to LOCAL weather events as evidence of global climate change. You alarmists owe IRYW an apology.
The GORACLE hath spoken—————–
“Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.
But Gore had a specific example in mind. He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was “consistent” with what global warming alarmists were projecting.”
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/03/audio-al-gore-points-to-local-weather.html
jt
March 17th, 2010
7:20 am
This will make it alright for you warmists to complain about global warming come August.
stands for decibels
March 17th, 2010
7:33 am
We’ll call the frisky Chicagoans who don’t accept their new plight and fight for their people “evil terrorists” and we’ll call anyone who doesn’t call them “evil terrorists” terrorists too!
fixed yer typo.
Paul
March 17th, 2010
7:35 am
Good morning, Report/Whine 5:33
Another way the Obama Administration is the same as the Bush Administration? That reference you cited could carry the headline “Obama Administrations Admits Unable to Capture bin Laden.”
Now we’re gonna get the farLeft recycling the same ridicule against Obama that they used against Bush. Sigh…..
jt 7:19
Kinda funny. All the posts here that say you can’t use specific weather events, such as a blizzard, as evidence climate change is not real, then Gore goes and does the same thing as evidence climate change IS real.
Whether or not a type of argument is valid or not depends upon what side of the fence you’re on.
Mornin’, josef nix
St Patrick’s celebration? In grade school? Isn’t this all about a Catholic priest and Lent and talking to angels? And parades and corned beef and green beer? And no one’s screaming ‘religion in schools!!!”?
That’s a mighty progressive school you work at!
Finn McCool
March 17th, 2010
7:36 am
If it’s cool outside today, global warming must be a sham.
“We don’t need no stinkin’ science.”
stands for decibels
March 17th, 2010
7:46 am
The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial said it best:
Is anyone with a functioning brain really supposed to accept the premise in its lede that the Administration “apologized” to Moammar Gadhafi?
It’s been a lonnng time since the WSJ’s editorial page was anything more than a fever swamp. This is just another reason to pay that grotesquely corrupt outfit very little heed.
USinUK
March 17th, 2010
7:48 am
Paul – 7:35 – ohfercryingoutloud – you know better than that. there’s a world of difference between pointing to weather PATTERNS and pointing to the thermometer right now.
Hawaii
March 17th, 2010
7:49 am
Birfers, don’t go away mad, just go away.
USinUK
March 17th, 2010
7:49 am
dB – “It’s been a lonnng time since the WSJ’s editorial page was anything more than a fever swamp”
2 words: Rupert. Murdoch.
that’s all you need to say about “quality journalism”
Rightwing Troll
March 17th, 2010
7:54 am
Ewwww…
Andy was on the sauce again last night, this place is so…messy…
ewwwwwwwwwwwwww
stands for decibels
March 17th, 2010
7:56 am
2 words: Rupert. Murdoch.
I dunno, it was a pretty nutty place before Rupe took it over. Their idea of providing equal time for the left was to publish Alexander C0ckburn’s op-eds, back in the 80s.
Which more or less allowed them to justify saying more or less anything in the service of rightie dogma because, after all, they allowed an actual Communist an open forum. (Kind of clever, actually.)
Note how I continue to specify their editorialists as offenders–there is still good work going on in their actual news pages. Problem is, of course, with print going bye-bye the bright line between news and editorial becomes much more difficult for casual web-surfers to ascertain.
stands for decibels
March 17th, 2010
7:57 am
Andy was on the sauce again last night
Guess I’ll have to scroll back and have me a look-see. Did he threaten to hang Gubmint employees in his front yard again?
Bud Wiser
March 17th, 2010
7:58 am
WASHINGTON – Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.
Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don’t look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help cover the cost for millions of people
Duh.
Everyone stupid enough to believe the Liar in Chief (go ahead dimwits, do not be shy) , sign here________________________.
Paul
March 17th, 2010
8:20 am
USinUK 7:48
Know better than what?
Northeast had rain.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6tfNzApstofgsxNKaABnHUoKKVQD9EF5C1G1
Shortly thereafter, ““Just look at what has been happening for the last three days,” Gore said. “The so-called skeptics haven’t noted it because it’s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about.””
So climate change skeptics point to heavy snowfall and say ‘what climate change?” Climate change advocates (Gore) point to heavy rain and say “this is consistent.”
Same sides of the same piece of paper.
Of course, then Gore went on to advocate changes that would benefit his investment firms….
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100316061540.aspx
His message may be correct, but he sure costs credibility for the movement with his efforts to enrich himself.
stands for decibels
March 17th, 2010
8:22 am
Now it’s all about what happens in November and who can get the upper hand on who. That’s what disgusts me about both parties
HD, if you’re around, and with all customary due respect, “both parties” didn’t set out saying that they were going to make this the other guy’s “Waterloo.” One party took office with a mandate from voters to effect specific changes. You can hardly expect them not to fight back when attacked, and it could be argued that the Dems didn’t fight back ferociously enough, early enough.
(Then again, at least one crazy polling-analyst says that there really wasn’t much the Dems could’ve done from a negotiating standpoint to make things come out any different at this point, so what do I know.)
Paul
March 17th, 2010
8:25 am
Bud Wiser
Just read this morning the number of middle-class households in Texas without health insurance increased by 41 percent from 2000-2008. Premiums rose 76 percent.
There’s a problem there, somewhere.
‘course, they defined middle class as $45,000-$85000 a year, while Democrats take the middle class all the way up to $250,000 a year…..
Paul
March 17th, 2010
8:29 am
sfd
[[One party took office with a mandate from voters to effect specific changes. ]]
Given the dissatisfaction among the public with the current offering (’we support reform, but this ain’t it’) do you think it might be similar to a family who tells a contractor to replace the kitchen appliances, then they get presented with a bill to replace the appliances, rip out the laminate countertops and install granite, pull up the flooring and install tile, etc.?
I think Dems had a mandate for change, but the competing interests within the Party each took it as a green light to proceed with their pet ideas and in doing so, alienated many of the people who voted for them.
It's about time
March 17th, 2010
8:31 am
Not to worry, folks. All of our concerns about healthcare and welfare and taxes and spending will take care of themselves in the end. All we have to do is nothing.
USinUK
March 17th, 2010
8:52 am
Paul – “‘course, they defined middle class as $45,000-$85000 a year, while Democrats take the middle class all the way up to $250,000 a year”
because COL is lower in TX than it is in CA, NY and DC (and probably higher than UT, ND and the like) … you have to average the ENTIRE country
and, as for Gore, he was talking weather PATTERNS, not “hey, it snowed today” …
Paul
March 17th, 2010
8:58 am
USinUK
I believe the article cited a national study and used those numbers for middle class, then extracted Texas data (number without insurance) for the local audience.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/16/2045462/middle-class-texans-slammed-by.html
Regarding ‘patterns’ – people on the opposite end of the spectrum will say ‘if Gore can use his “3 days of rain in the northeast’ as a pattern, I can use my snowfall (where ever)”
and call it a pattern.
stands for decibels
March 17th, 2010
9:00 am
Given the dissatisfaction among the public with the current offering
Sorry, I don’t buy this narrative, and obviously Democrats who are working to get this passed don’t either.
Finn McCool
March 17th, 2010
9:02 am
Dennis Kucinich is going to vote yes on the HC bill. One more hurdle crossed.
Hef
March 17th, 2010
9:07 am
Off Topic-Dekalb county parents have every right to be upset with the proposed closing of multiple schools.Just make sure to channel that anger in a way that will be most effective,make those responsible accountable.
TnGelding
March 17th, 2010
9:07 am
Worm turned?
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/443599/%22Big-Shift%22%3A-U.S.-Economy-Poised-for-Jobs-Growth%2C-John-Challenger-Says
stands for decibels
March 17th, 2010
9:08 am
but to answer Paul’s reasonable question:
do you think it might be similar to a family who tells a contractor to replace the kitchen appliances, then they get presented with a bill to replace the appliances, rip out the laminate countertops and install granite, pull up the flooring and install tile, etc.?
I don’t; I think it would be more like the contractor was told to replace the appliances, but he could only manage to provide the stove and dishwasher at the moment; the fridge was going to have to wait; and he asks, “can you live with that, until we can get a really nice fridge when the costs come down?”
And maybe the husband and older son were ok with it, but the wife and younger daughter really wanted a new fridge more than a stove and dishwasher?
Paul
March 17th, 2010
9:08 am
sfd
You don’t think there’s dissatisfaction among the public with the bill?
You may want to consider this analysis:
http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2010_03_01_archive.html
“Gallup’s latest survey was conducted March 4-7. We found that 48% of Americans would advise their representative in Congress to vote against “a healthcare bill similar to that proposed by President Obama”; 45% would vote in favor. The other most recent poll, conducted by AP-GfK at roughly the same time, found 43% would oppose and 41% would support “the health care reform plans being discussed in Congress.” (This poll offered respondents an explicit “neither support nor oppose” alternative, taken by 12%, with another 4% saying they were unsure.)
How to characterize these results? I might say “tilt slightly against” as a little more precise summary than “divided.” But, in any case, I would not agree with the Caddell/Schoen interpretation that a “solid majority” of Americans opposes the legislation. At least, not based on the most recent poll data.
A side note. All of this highlights one of Benenson’s challenges. His employer, the White House, is attempting to proactively pass a new bill. But Benenson can’t use poll data to say that a majority of Americans want the healthcare bill passed. So he is, in essence, reduced to arguing that the other side is wrong if they say that the majority oppose passing a healthcare bill. In this case, to say the public is “divided” is a positive thing.
Clearly a lot of this is a glass half empty/half full situation. Caddell and Schoen are correct that the battle for public opinion on healthcare has not been won. Benenson may be right that it has not been totally lost either. The data still suggest that if the bill were put to a national referendum with a full turnout, it would lose.”
Hef
March 17th, 2010
9:09 am
Its about time-another words business as usual.
USinUK
March 17th, 2010
9:09 am
TnG – I’m not going to say “gee, that’s what I’ve been saying for the last couple of months” … but I will say this:
GEE, that’s what I’ve been saying for the last couple of months.
thanks for the linkee!
Paul
March 17th, 2010
9:10 am
sfd 9:08
That’s a decent analogy. Now, add in the hype of “I said I wanted a dishwasher and you want to pay for some maid service to come in every day and take over my kitchen…” and it’s closer yet. Bleah.
stands for decibels
March 17th, 2010
9:19 am
“I said I wanted a dishwasher and you want to pay for some maid service to come in every day and take over my kitchen…”
See, I don’t get how the HCR legislation being worked out is an order of magnitude greater in scope than the sorts of things being proposed during the 2008 campaign by both Clinton and Obama. We knew going in that there were going to be all kinds of structural repairs, replacements and tweaks to what we have now; I really don’t see how anyone who was paying attention during all the debates can claim to be shocked, shocked, at how it’s actually being written up.
As for the political analysis you’ve offered @ 9.08, maybe it’s dead on, maybe not. I will remind everyone that the mid-term elections are not being held next month, but rather in November, by which time both sides will have had ample opportunities to frame their arguments accordingly. At the moment we’re focusing on how the GOP will be poised to attack those who voted for HCR; we’ve not given that much thought as to how Dems will go after those who voted against the popular reforms that are part of the bill.
Die Mainstream-Medien und der Petraeus-Faktor « Medien BackSpin
March 17th, 2010
10:41 am
[...] Auch Jay Bookman riecht den Braten. Obwohl er Perrys Glaubwürdigkeit nicht anzweifelt schreibt er in der Atlanta Journal Constitution: [...]
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Have A Drink On Us, obozo!
March 17th, 2010
5:19 pm
There seems to be an emotional desperation at work here. The legislative success of ObamaCare has become so tied up with Obama’s sense of himself that he feels he must push ahead–and to some extent, the leaders in Congress feel the same way. Obama is not the calm rationalist he seemed during the campaign. But while there’s a place for passion in politics, to be governed by a politician who fails to govern his passions is a frightening and creepy experience.-Taranto, WSJ
eeewwwwwwww, is what I like to say….
RobDS
May 9th, 2010
3:45 pm
General Petraeus had distanced himself from the remarks attributed to him. He specifically denied stating that Israel has placed American lives at risk. It is true that Arabs resent Israel, but they resent her existence itself as a Jewish sovereign state, as shown by three wars they started or provoked when there were few if any settlements. They view Israel as in infidel state that has no right to exist. Some Arab elements view the U.S.the same way, as shown by continued Islamic terrorist attacks on our country.
In fact, Israel is one of our most reliable allies.
Israel provides us with real-time, vital intelligence including intelligence dealing with anti-U.S. terrorist organizations and regimes. Second, Israel participates with the U.S. in joint military exercises. Third, Israel has jointly developed with the U.S. an advanced anti-ballistic missile defense system. This provides America with the research and experience to develop additional defensive weapons systems and also protects US personnel throughout the region. Israel also permits the U.S. to stockpile arms and other vital supplies on her soil. In addition, about 70-75% of American aid to Israel is spent in the U.S., providing American jobs, supporting the American defense industry and generating economic growth. Israel was also one of the first countries to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. She continues to help America develop counter-terrorism techniques and prevent threats. Finally, as U.S. General Craddock testified before the Senate in 2007, “In the Middle East, Israel is the U.S.’s closest ally that consistently and directly supports our interests” and is a “critical military partner.” (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs internet, “Israel and the United States: Friends, Partners, Allies, June 1, 2007; Congressman Steve Rothman, “The dividends of U.S. Support for Israel,” The Record, April 13, 2010); Statement of General Bantz J. Craddock, Commander, U.S. European Command Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, May 17, 2007.
General Petraeus has subsequenetly reaffirmed Israel’s value as a U. S. ally. Let’s not weaken Israel’s ability to defend herself and to continue to be one of our most reliable allies.