- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Assuming the latest news accounts are accurate, I believe President Obama's current efforts to press Israel are badly misguided for a number of reasons:
1. They ignore the reality that it has been the Palestinians not Israel who have been boycotting negotiations. The Palestinians have been demanding an entrance price to indirect talks. Israel has repeatedly expressed its willingness and desire to immediately engage in unconditional direct negotiations.
2. Israel has demonstrated through credible actions its desire for peace. It accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal of December 2000. In late 2008, Prime Minister Olmert offered even more generous terms than President Clinton's proposal. In both instances, the Palestinians failed to seize the opportunity for peace. In the two cases where Arab states were serious about peace, Israel reached agreement.
3. Israel has repeatedly made good faith unilateral concessions. Those concessions have been pocketed by the Palestinians. They did not produce greater flexibility on the part of the Palestinians. In the case of the Gaza Strip and also Lebanon, the result was violence against Israel's people.
4. Indirect talks have not produced much progress. The successful negotiations between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan were direct talks.
5. Israel is held responsible for a badly timed announcement by the Interior Minister. The Palestinians were not criticized for naming a public square in Ramallah after a terrorist who was responsible for a loss of Israeli lives.
6. Breaking an ally demonstrates a lack of reliability. Should Israel be forced to capitulate to U.S. demands, that will send a clear message to other U.S. allies that the alliance is based strictly on U.S. desires , not mutual interests, and can turn on a whim. It will demonstrate before the world that U.S. commitments are not reliable. That development would raise legitimate concerns down the road, both with economic and political partners. For example, given persistent U.S. trade deficits, countries running trade surpluses with the U.S. might well have reasons to expect that the U.S. will act in a protectionist fashion even if such trade imbalances are the result of comparative advantages not unfair trade practices. Given long-term fiscal imbalances, nations currently financing U.S. debt could have genuine reason to worry about a partial U.S. default via significant currency devaluation.
IMO, Israel should not capitulate to the current unreasonable demands being placed on it. Such a move would set a bad precedent and embolden the Palestinians to become even more intransigent in the belief that the U.S. would ultimately break Israel. Furthermore, I suspect that there is a limit to how far the Administration can push Israel before Congress constrains it.
1. They ignore the reality that it has been the Palestinians not Israel who have been boycotting negotiations. The Palestinians have been demanding an entrance price to indirect talks. Israel has repeatedly expressed its willingness and desire to immediately engage in unconditional direct negotiations.
2. Israel has demonstrated through credible actions its desire for peace. It accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal of December 2000. In late 2008, Prime Minister Olmert offered even more generous terms than President Clinton's proposal. In both instances, the Palestinians failed to seize the opportunity for peace. In the two cases where Arab states were serious about peace, Israel reached agreement.
3. Israel has repeatedly made good faith unilateral concessions. Those concessions have been pocketed by the Palestinians. They did not produce greater flexibility on the part of the Palestinians. In the case of the Gaza Strip and also Lebanon, the result was violence against Israel's people.
4. Indirect talks have not produced much progress. The successful negotiations between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan were direct talks.
5. Israel is held responsible for a badly timed announcement by the Interior Minister. The Palestinians were not criticized for naming a public square in Ramallah after a terrorist who was responsible for a loss of Israeli lives.
6. Breaking an ally demonstrates a lack of reliability. Should Israel be forced to capitulate to U.S. demands, that will send a clear message to other U.S. allies that the alliance is based strictly on U.S. desires , not mutual interests, and can turn on a whim. It will demonstrate before the world that U.S. commitments are not reliable. That development would raise legitimate concerns down the road, both with economic and political partners. For example, given persistent U.S. trade deficits, countries running trade surpluses with the U.S. might well have reasons to expect that the U.S. will act in a protectionist fashion even if such trade imbalances are the result of comparative advantages not unfair trade practices. Given long-term fiscal imbalances, nations currently financing U.S. debt could have genuine reason to worry about a partial U.S. default via significant currency devaluation.
IMO, Israel should not capitulate to the current unreasonable demands being placed on it. Such a move would set a bad precedent and embolden the Palestinians to become even more intransigent in the belief that the U.S. would ultimately break Israel. Furthermore, I suspect that there is a limit to how far the Administration can push Israel before Congress constrains it.
Last edited: