Indeed, whenever the United States has put serious, sustained pressure on Israel’s leaders — from the 1950s on — it has come from Republican presidents, not Democratic ones. This was particularly true under Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.While in terms of the facts, he's correct. George HW Bush, and especially his Secretary of State James A. Baker III, were particularly brutal toward Israel. However, I'm not sure, as a general rule, Halevey placed the issue within the best context. Each administration has its own set of issues and demands in part determined by the time in history, the international situation ... So while it may be true, what does it mean for the 2012 elections? That despite the strong pro-Israel rhetoric from Mitt Romney Israel needs to gird itself for a 'rough ride' if he's elected? That despite the criticism leveled at Barack Obama he'll (continue) to be good for Israel? I'm not sure that it's the correct message.
Part of the piece includes:
Despite the Republican Party’s shrill campaign rhetoric on Israel, no Democratic president has ever strong-armed Israel on any key national security issue. In the 1956 Suez Crisis, it was a Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who joined the Soviet Union in forcing Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula after a joint Israeli-British-French attack on Egypt.In 1991, when Iraqi Scud missiles rained down on Tel Aviv, the administration of the first President Bush urged Israel not to strike back so as to preserve the coalition of Arab states fighting Iraq. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir resisted his security chiefs’ recommendation to retaliate and bowed to American demands as his citizens reached for their gas masks.After the war, Mr. Shamir agreed to go to Madrid for a Middle East peace conference set up by Secretary of State James A. Baker III. Fearful that Mr. Shamir would be intransigent at the negotiating table, the White House pressured him by withholding $10 billion in loan guarantees to Israel, causing us serious economic problems. The eventual result was Mr. Shamir’s political downfall. The man who had saved Mr. Bush’s grand coalition against Saddam Hussein in 1991 was “thrown under the bus.”In all of these instances, a Republican White House acted in a cold and determined manner, with no regard for Israel’s national pride, strategic interests or sensitivities. That’s food for thought in October 2012.
And then there's the issue of "The Road Map" which he claims Israel was strong armed to accept because America was anxious to get Great Britain (Tony Blair as PM) on board for the first Iraq War.
Just as the British Parliament was about to approve the joint venture, a group of Mr. Blair’s Labour Party colleagues threatened to revolt, demanding Israeli concessions to the Palestinians in exchange for their support for the Iraq invasion. This demand could have scuttled the war effort, and there was only one way that British support could be maintained: Mr. Bush would have to declare that the “road map” for Middle East peace, a proposal drafted early in his administration, was the formal policy of the United States.
Israel’s prime minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, had been vehemently opposed to the road map, which contained several “red lines” that he refused to accept, including a stipulation that the future status of Jerusalem would be determined by “a negotiated resolution” taking into account “the political and religious concerns of both sides.”... March 13, 2003, senior Israeli officials were summarily informed that the United States would publicly adopt the draft road map as its policy. Washington made it clear to us that on the eve of a war, Israel was expected to refrain from criticizing the American policy and also to ensure that its sympathizers got the message [and] that the road map be approved without any changes, saying Israel’s concerns would be addressed later. ...
From that point on, the road map, including the language on Jerusalem, became the policy bible for America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. Not only was Israel strong-armed by a Republican president, but it was also compelled to simply acquiesce and swallow the bitterest of pills.
OK. But what about Nixon, George W Bush? Then there are the issues that Obama, Clinton and Carter pressured Israel.
The bottom line is that America and its President (and Congress too) needs to advance the American Interest. Israeli interests are nice to think about but, when push comes to shove, American interests ALWAYS trump non-American ones, including Israel. I would expect the same from Israel to place her interests above all other countries.
So while Israel may value, and need, American support Israel and every country needs to keep in mind De Gaulle's adage "countries have no friends only interests."
Happy elections
No comments:
Post a Comment