French leaders consistently dislike their Israeli counterparts. This is because the French prefer to cozy up to Arab leaders, and Israel asks them not to.
French leaders' disgust for Israel most recently surfaced in reported remarks by French President Sarkozy to U.S. President Obama.
"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, to which Obama replied, "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you."
It's not surprising that Sarkozy would attempt to undermine Israel's foreign policy agenda and manipulate Obama's relations with Israel by discrediting, without justification, Israel's leader.
Sarkozy's distasteful remarks probably were triggered in part by recent U.S. criticism of France's decision to support full Palestinian membership in the United Nations Economic, Scientific, and Culture Organization (UNESCO). Obama had told Sarkozy previously that the US didn't "appreciate" France's decision and failure to "consult" on the issue.
Anyone weighing the meaning and significance of Sarkozy's insult of Netanyahu should consider France's long-standing antagonism toward Israel, which France views as an impediment to its relations with the Arabs. Sarkozy also aims to divert U.S. pressure from his own government's unfortunate and wrong-headed policies toward the Palestinians.
Showing posts with label US-Israel Relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US-Israel Relations. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
USIP Event Announcement Distorts the Facts
The United States Institute of Peace, based in Washington, DC, has announced an event on October 20 to discuss developments relating to the U.S., Israel, and Iran. But the announcement itself is misleading in at least two respects.
First, the USIP says that Iranian leaders have gone "as far as" to question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
In fact, Iran has gone much farther. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said Israel "must be wiped off the map." In other words, he has not just said, well, Israel maybe shouldn't exist. Ahmadinejad has actually advocated Israel's destruction, albeit leaving it unclear who should be responsible for destroying it.
While left-wing defenders of Iran have sought to excuse Ahmadinejad's remarks, saying either he didn't really mean it or his words were improperly translated, Ahmadinejad himself has defended his statement as "just" and reflecting the sentiments of all Iranians.
Second, the USIP annoucement attempts to depict the U.S. and Israel as at odds over Iran when, in fact, the two allies are much more in sync than in disagreement. The USIP says, "Israel's leaders have signaled their displeasure with any sustained U.S. bid to engage Iran."
While some Israeli leaders may have, on occasion, questioned U.S. attempts to engage Iran diplomatically, Israel's prime minister constantly speaks in support of the U.S. Administration's ongoing and more pronounced effort to target Iran with economic sanctions.
At a press conference with U.S. Vice President Biden on September 3, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "I very much appreciate the efforts of President Obama and the American Government to lead the international community to place tough sanctions on Iran.... I think the leading countries of the international community have to join the American effort and Israel has been helping out with key countries and will continue to do so."
Rather than attempt to highlight differences between the U.S. and Israel over Iran, the USIP could have, and should have, highlighted that the two countries are in agreement about continuing to try to change Iranian behavior through economic sanctions. That, after all, is the primary focus of U.S. efforts at the moment -- not, rather, to "engage" Iran. As is, the USIP statement is unfair to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship by understating the Iranian threat and mischaracterizing Israel's position on U.S. efforts to contain it.
First, the USIP says that Iranian leaders have gone "as far as" to question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
In fact, Iran has gone much farther. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said Israel "must be wiped off the map." In other words, he has not just said, well, Israel maybe shouldn't exist. Ahmadinejad has actually advocated Israel's destruction, albeit leaving it unclear who should be responsible for destroying it.
While left-wing defenders of Iran have sought to excuse Ahmadinejad's remarks, saying either he didn't really mean it or his words were improperly translated, Ahmadinejad himself has defended his statement as "just" and reflecting the sentiments of all Iranians.
Second, the USIP annoucement attempts to depict the U.S. and Israel as at odds over Iran when, in fact, the two allies are much more in sync than in disagreement. The USIP says, "Israel's leaders have signaled their displeasure with any sustained U.S. bid to engage Iran."
While some Israeli leaders may have, on occasion, questioned U.S. attempts to engage Iran diplomatically, Israel's prime minister constantly speaks in support of the U.S. Administration's ongoing and more pronounced effort to target Iran with economic sanctions.
At a press conference with U.S. Vice President Biden on September 3, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "I very much appreciate the efforts of President Obama and the American Government to lead the international community to place tough sanctions on Iran.... I think the leading countries of the international community have to join the American effort and Israel has been helping out with key countries and will continue to do so."
Rather than attempt to highlight differences between the U.S. and Israel over Iran, the USIP could have, and should have, highlighted that the two countries are in agreement about continuing to try to change Iranian behavior through economic sanctions. That, after all, is the primary focus of U.S. efforts at the moment -- not, rather, to "engage" Iran. As is, the USIP statement is unfair to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship by understating the Iranian threat and mischaracterizing Israel's position on U.S. efforts to contain it.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
US Interfering in Israeli Decision-Making
The following is an unpublished letter-to-the-editor of the Wall Street Journal:
September 2, 2010
Editorial Page Editor
Wall Street Journal
Dear Editorial Page Editor:
U.S. taxpayers should not be subsidizing commercials in which Palestinian leaders profess partnership with Israelis in hopes of winning concessions in peace talks (“Israel, Palestinians Jockey Ahead of Summit,” World News, August 31, 2010). Rather, Israelis alone must decide, based on tangible actions and not empty words, whether Palestinians, and not just their leaders, are trustworthy partners for peace.
A better and more urgent use of U.S. funds would be to enable Palestinian leaders to preach coexistence and compromise to their own people. According to recent polling by the reputable Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, more than three-quarters of Palestinians still aspire to “historic Palestine from the river to the sea,” and a large minority still supports violence. Palestinian leaders and media continue to send counterproductive messages, naming parks and summer camps after “martyred” terrorists and educating children to aspire to “return” to pre-1967 Israel. A children’s program on official Palestinian television last week reportedly described five Israeli cities as “occupied.”
Until Palestinian leaders begin educating their people differently, no peace agreement with Israel will be permanent, regardless of the firmness of their handshake.
Sincerely,
Jess M. Sadick
September 2, 2010
Editorial Page Editor
Wall Street Journal
Dear Editorial Page Editor:
U.S. taxpayers should not be subsidizing commercials in which Palestinian leaders profess partnership with Israelis in hopes of winning concessions in peace talks (“Israel, Palestinians Jockey Ahead of Summit,” World News, August 31, 2010). Rather, Israelis alone must decide, based on tangible actions and not empty words, whether Palestinians, and not just their leaders, are trustworthy partners for peace.
A better and more urgent use of U.S. funds would be to enable Palestinian leaders to preach coexistence and compromise to their own people. According to recent polling by the reputable Palestinian Center for Public Opinion, more than three-quarters of Palestinians still aspire to “historic Palestine from the river to the sea,” and a large minority still supports violence. Palestinian leaders and media continue to send counterproductive messages, naming parks and summer camps after “martyred” terrorists and educating children to aspire to “return” to pre-1967 Israel. A children’s program on official Palestinian television last week reportedly described five Israeli cities as “occupied.”
Until Palestinian leaders begin educating their people differently, no peace agreement with Israel will be permanent, regardless of the firmness of their handshake.
Sincerely,
Jess M. Sadick
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Making the Case Against Obama's Middle East Policy
President Obama couldn't be all that bad for Israel and the Jews. After all, some 80 percent of Jews, if not more, voted for him, a good percentage of his campaign funds came from Jews, and his Chief of Staff, for heaven's sake, is a Jew. So, he couldn't possibly harbor any hostility toward Jews or Israel, right?
Wrong!
Bush Administration State Department adviser on anti-Semitism Gregg Rickman, does an outstanding job explaining most of Obama's missteps on Israel and the Middle East, and offenses against American Jews, thus far as President in this opinion article. All should read it.
It would appear that the Obama White House lacks some serious quality control. After all, how could someone like former UN official Mary Robinson, who ignored anti-Jewish attacks at the Durban Conference, be awarded by Obama a Presidential Metal of Freedom? Don't expect American Jewish organizations to protest. According to an account in the Forward, their leaders are too afraid to burn bridges with the new Administration.
Wrong!
Bush Administration State Department adviser on anti-Semitism Gregg Rickman, does an outstanding job explaining most of Obama's missteps on Israel and the Middle East, and offenses against American Jews, thus far as President in this opinion article. All should read it.
It would appear that the Obama White House lacks some serious quality control. After all, how could someone like former UN official Mary Robinson, who ignored anti-Jewish attacks at the Durban Conference, be awarded by Obama a Presidential Metal of Freedom? Don't expect American Jewish organizations to protest. According to an account in the Forward, their leaders are too afraid to burn bridges with the new Administration.
Update: Defending Nadav Tamir
Well, recalled Israeli Consul to Boston Nadav Tamir had his proverbial day in court today with the Director-General of Israel's Foreign Minister, Yossi Gal.
Gal reportedly told Tamir essentially what we argued yesterday -- that Tamir's criticisms, even if warranted, should have been passed to Jerusalem through proper channels.
Tamir will keep his job. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman will keep whatever goodwill he may have had with the Foreign Ministry's staff. Imagine the internal backlash he would have had to endure had he fired Tamir.
Tamir's apology for his lapse in judgment and his impending return to Boston will, effectively, close this matter, but the underlying public debate Tamir raised about whether it is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's, and not US President Obama's, policies that are causing friction in US-Israel relations will continue to fester.
Obviously, we see Obama's hasty and ill-advised shift of attention to Israeli settlements and general misunderstanding of the intransigence and deep-seeded hostility of Israel's enemies as the cause of the downward spiral in US-Israel relations. Israel -- and, in particular, Netanyahu, who delivered a speech embracing qualified Palestinian statehood and continues to negotiate in good faith with US envoy George Mitchell over settlements -- ought to bear no responsibility for the tensions.
Gal reportedly told Tamir essentially what we argued yesterday -- that Tamir's criticisms, even if warranted, should have been passed to Jerusalem through proper channels.
Tamir will keep his job. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman will keep whatever goodwill he may have had with the Foreign Ministry's staff. Imagine the internal backlash he would have had to endure had he fired Tamir.
Tamir's apology for his lapse in judgment and his impending return to Boston will, effectively, close this matter, but the underlying public debate Tamir raised about whether it is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's, and not US President Obama's, policies that are causing friction in US-Israel relations will continue to fester.
Obviously, we see Obama's hasty and ill-advised shift of attention to Israeli settlements and general misunderstanding of the intransigence and deep-seeded hostility of Israel's enemies as the cause of the downward spiral in US-Israel relations. Israel -- and, in particular, Netanyahu, who delivered a speech embracing qualified Palestinian statehood and continues to negotiate in good faith with US envoy George Mitchell over settlements -- ought to bear no responsibility for the tensions.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Defending Nadav Tamir
In an opinion article, former Israeli diplomat Alon Liel defends colleague Nadav Tamir, the Israeli Consul-General in Boston who recently criticized the Netanyahu government's handling of relations with the United States.
Liel, though, focuses on what Tamir said rather than how he said it.
Obviously, if an Israeli diplomat has opinions to share about US-Israel relations, he should share them -- through proper channels. If Tamir purposely publicly distributed his opinions, as has been reported, then he is wrong for doing so.
Liel says: "So what did Nadav Tamir say that warranted such fierce responses from the Israeli government?"
It's not WHAT he said that is at issue -- though, I strongly disagree with his opinions -- it's HOW he chose to say it.
Liel, though, focuses on what Tamir said rather than how he said it.
Obviously, if an Israeli diplomat has opinions to share about US-Israel relations, he should share them -- through proper channels. If Tamir purposely publicly distributed his opinions, as has been reported, then he is wrong for doing so.
Liel says: "So what did Nadav Tamir say that warranted such fierce responses from the Israeli government?"
It's not WHAT he said that is at issue -- though, I strongly disagree with his opinions -- it's HOW he chose to say it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
