In this mailing:
- Khaled Abu Toameh: Palestinians Plan "Warm" Welcome for Obama
- Shoshana Bryen: The Current Limits of U.S.-Israel Security
Cooperation
Palestinians
Plan "Warm" Welcome for Obama
by Khaled Abu
Toameh
March 8, 2013 at 5:00 am
March 8, 2013 at 5:00 am
|
Share:
 |
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
There is no
reason why Obama should not take all these threats seriously.
US President Barack Obama is coming to the Middle East later this month to
explore the possibility of resuming peace talks between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority.But while Obama is thinking of ways to revive the stalled peace talks, Palestinian activists say they are planning a "warm" welcome for him when he visits Ramallah or any other Palestinian city in the West Bank.
One plan being discussed among Palestinian activists includes staging anti-US demonstrations in Palestinian cities, particularly outside the place Obama is scheduled to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
Activists in Ramallah said they would try to block the roads leading to the location of the Obama-Abbas meeting to protest against US "bias in favor of Israel."
Some activists have even prepared American flags and portraits of Obama that would be set on fire in front of TV crews covering the visit.
Palestinian activists say they are also hoping to humiliate Obama when and if he decides to visit the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
Many Palestinians have already called on Obama to refrain from visiting the holy site, especially if he would be escorted by Israeli policemen and security officials.
Leaders of various Palestinian and Israeli Arab groups this week appealed to Obama to stay away from the Aqsa Mosque during his planned visit.
Members of Hizb al-Tahrir, a radical Islamist group, said this week that they would throw shoes at Obama and his entourage if they arrived at the Aqsa Mosque.
There is no reason why Obama should not take all these threats seriously.
Earlier this week, the British Consul-General to Jerusalem, Sir Vincent Fean, had to flee Bir Zeit University near Ramallah after angry Palestinian students attacked his car.
The top British diplomat had arrived at the campus to deliver a lecture explaining his country's position regarding the Palestinian issue. His presence on campus triggered protests from students, who shouted slogans denouncing the Balfour Declaration and Britain's alleged bias in favor of Israel.
Palestinians are disappointed with Obama because of what they perceive as his unwavering support for Israel. They are particularly upset with Obama for failing to force Israel to accept their demands, including a full cessation of settlement construction, the release of Palestinians from Israeli jails, and a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.
Palestinian activists said they were also disappointed with Obama because they believe that Iran, and not the Palestinian issue, is now at the top of his list of priorities.
By planning protests against Obama, Palestinians are hoping to bring their issue back to the top of the US Administration's list of priorities. But they are also hoping to humiliate Obama and the US for not being supportive enough of the Palestinians.
Palestinians are also angry with Obama because of his refusal to support Abbas's statehood bid at the UN late last year.
Some Palestinians admitted that plans to disrupt Obama's visit to the Aqsa Mosque are also aimed at embarrassing Israel and drawing the world's attention to what they claim, without evidence, is an Israeli plot to "destroy" the mosque and replace it with the Third Temple.
So while Obama is seeking to revive the peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis, many Palestinians are thinking of ways to humiliate him and the US. When and if Obama visits the West Bank or the Aqsa Mosque, he will be reminded of the fact that many Palestinians continue to regard the US as an enemy, not a friend.
Related Topics: Khaled Abu
Toameh
The
Current Limits of U.S.-Israel Security Cooperation
by Shoshana Bryen
March 8, 2013 at 4:00 am
March 8, 2013 at 4:00 am
|
Share:
|
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
This
patronizing attitude is reflected in the President's assertion that Israel's
democratically elected leaders "don't know what's in their own
self-interest." While missile defense cooperation continues, the
administration has taken overt steps to tell the Arab and Muslim world that the
U.S. is severable from Israel.
Shared values and democratic systems count for a lot in the political world
-- and they can advance military cooperation -- but national security interests
can evolve without them. No one would mistake Saudi Arabia or Bahrain for a
country that shares American values, yet the U.S. Central Command works closely
and cooperatively with both.Israel shares American values in many ways, but a shared security outlook is something else, hinging on threat perceptions that may no longer be coincident.
Vice President Biden took to the stage at AIPAC this week to promote U.S.-Israel security relations. His emphasis on American support for Israel's missile defense program is the coin of the realm – first because it is true and second because Israel's enemies have missiles.
But security relations have undergone a subtle, negative change in the past four years.
The Obama administration has been willing to be Israel's protector, patron to a client, or parent to a child. This patronizing attitude is reflected in the President's assertion that Israel's democratically elected leaders "don't know what's in their own best interest" and Vice President Biden's comment that President Obama wants to hear from "regular Israelis" on his upcoming trip, suggesting that what he hears from Prime Minister Netanyahu would be disputed by Israel's citizenry. The administration is less willing to be Israel's partner in addressing common threats, including terrorism and the rise of radical Islam. And there has been a limit to consultation and cooperation on Iran. On occasion, the U.S. adds to Israel's problems by allowing Israel to bear the brunt of the world's disapprobation at the UN.
The
History
Israel's first strategic allies were France and Great Britain. The U.S. was
sympathetic to Israel's plight as small and vulnerable to threats from combinations
of Arab states, but except for a desire not to have socialist Israel in the
pro-Soviet camp and the 1956 Eisenhower outburst, the U.S. was uninvolved in
Israeli security. President Johnson declined to be of assistance to Israel in
the Six Day War.Presidents Nixon and Reagan saw Israel in the Cold War context. Nixon stood with Israel as a defensive measure against the Soviet Union in 1973. Reagan opened "strategic cooperation" as a forward step in a plan to defeat the USSR. His idea of ballistic missile defenses was matched by Israeli innovation in the field; the result was tremendous advancement and in-depth cooperation.
At the end of the Cold War, President Clinton called for "capabilities based" defense to cover contingencies rather than specific enemies. Israel was well placed to continue to work with the United States and provide technological capabilities and test beds. Israel established warm relations with some of the newest NATO members, Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as with Bulgaria and Romania.
After 9-11, President Bush's formulation of a "war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them" resonated fully with Israel, and there was increased closeness and cooperation on perceived regional threats. But congruity of interests is never total. When American and Israeli positions on Iran diverged (about 2007), President Bush refused Israel weapons that could be used against Iran.
The
Present
When the Obama Administration redefined the wars in which the United States
is engaged, the words "Islamic" or "Muslim" terrorism and
radical Islam were shelved in favor of more neutral appellations. In his Cairo
address, President Obama sought to establish "mutual respect" between
the West and the "Muslim world," and he accepted the view that
policies of the West were partly responsible for the antagonism of Muslims
toward the United States. He called Israel's independence a response to the
Holocaust -- a charge that fed into the Arab complaint that Israel was foisted
on the region by guilty Europeans rather than by being a legitimate and
permanent part of the region.Without commenting on the approach itself, it should be noted that the independence of and continuing support for Israel is, by the definition of its enemies, part of what the West did and does that creates antagonism in the "Muslim world." And for those who believe, as Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has said, that terrorists are created as a reaction to Western provocation, support for Israel is precisely such a provocation.
In terms of military cooperation, then, the President's formulation reduced the ability of Israel to have equal stature with the United States in a regional mission.
The
United States in the United Nations
At the outset, the Obama administration made it clear that the United
Nations would be its preferred venue for diplomacy. In contrast to the Bush
administration, the U.S. rejoined the UN Human Rights Commission and the UN
Alliance of Civilizations, an openly anti-Israel body which claimed in 2006 that
global tensions were driven primarily by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and
referred to the September 11th attacks as resulting from "a perception
among Muslim societies of unjust aggression stemming from the West."It was in the Alliance of Civilizations that Turkey's Prime Minister last week lumped Zionism with "Islamophobia" and anti-Semitism as racist doctrines and "war crimes."
In the UN Security Council, the U.S. declined to support Canada's traditional, once-a-decade bid for a seat. Canada, an outspoken supporter of Israel, lost to Portugal, a stalwart representative of EU ambivalence. The U.S. voted against the infamous "Goldstone Report," but declined to use its influence to encourage others to do the same. The administration demanded a "total settlement freeze" from Israel and allowed Israeli policies to be denounced in the fiercest terms in the Security Council before exercising its veto. The U.S. brokered a Security Council "compromise" that allowed Israel to be criticized along with Syria.
The administration accepted the 2010 UN Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Review that singled out Israel for condemnation – despite public statements that it would never do that.
Bilateral
Cooperation while Preserving Distance
There has been an increase in Ballistic Missile Defense cooperation, which
is good for Israel: its enemies have missiles. But it represents a completely defensive
option. The administration is comfortable with the idea of defending
Israel, but by putting Israel in the position of the "defense client"
it was until 1980, rather than by enhancing its status as a "partner"
in mutual defense -- this is not a step forward.Further, defense is irrelevant until after an attack. Any thought Israel has about protecting its citizens through pre-emptive measures is not covered. Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress, "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israelis] choose to do it [attack Iran's nuclear program]." That remark must have greatly comforted Iran.
Austere Challenge, a once-cancelled U.S.-Israel missile defense exercise, did go forward at the end of 2012, but in a scaled back mode, most likely to reassure Iran that it was not cover for any offensive activity. In case this dodge was not clear, Gen. Craig Franklin, Commander of U.S. Third Air Force, repeated that point several times in a single interview before the exercise: "It's purely to provide defensive capabilities with Israel. ... This exercise doesn't look at any particular threat, it looks at a threat scenario that is notional. ... This is a military exercise not tied to any particular recent world event, it's just a notional exercise. ... As I mentioned, this is not related to any particular recent world event."
While missile defense cooperation continues, the Obama administration has taken overt steps to tell the Arab and Muslim world that the U.S. is severable from Israel. The NATO-related air rescue operation Anatolian Eagle was canceled because Turkey would not let Israel participate. Last May, the Administration held Eager Lion 2012, a Special Operations exercise with 19 Arab and Muslim countries, including Egypt, Lebanon and Pakistan.
The tactics and training of Special Operations is an important component of Israel's "qualitative military edge." How much of what the U.S. and Israel developed over the years was shared with countries overtly hostile to Israel? Israel was not invited to the May 2012 NATO confab, although 13 NATO "partner nations" were invited to discuss terrorism. Two other US-organized and -led multilateral counterterrorism confabs excluded Israel as well.
When Turkey objected to the sharing of intelligence information with Israel, Secretary of Defense Panetta said no NATO radar intelligence would be shared "outside of NATO." Secretary Hagel is unlikely to share what Secretary Panetta would not.
Cooperation
for the Future
The U.S. and Israel continue to share values across the board, share
capabilities in certain areas and to acknowledge common threats. President
Obama's visit to Israel later in the month would be an opportune time to think
about how to end the current patron-client relationship and restore Israel's
position as a parallel security partner to the United States.Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center.
Related Topics: Israel
| Shoshana
Bryen
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
No comments:
Post a Comment