Is Obama Really an Israel-Hater?
Obama didn't invent the wheel: Here is a short reminder of U.S.-Israeli relations that demonstrates that no American government has accepted Israeli policy in the territories and Jerusalem.
U.S.-Israeli relations are in quite an intense crisis. There are those who are trying to beautify the picture, to sweeten the bitter pill that Netanyahu was forced to swallow during his last visit, and through familiar rhetoric, full of religious-Zionist pathos, put a spin on the new reality. Whoever wants to live in the paradise of fools, that is his full right. What's outrageous is the short national Israeli memory that puts us in deep trouble.
Generations of U.S. governments, from '67 until today, have opposed the Israeli assertion that a unified Jerusalem, forever and ever, is the exclusive capital of the Jewish nation. Not only is it a distortion of reality and diplomatic relations between Israel and the United States, but we're talking here about an attempt to deceive the public.
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol had to stand up to an American diplomatic offensive, the goal of which was to force Israel to return to the pre-Six Day War borders. The decision adopted by Security Council Resolution 242, was nothing but an obligation forced upon Israel to retreat to the '67 borders, more or less. American and European pressure was too strong, despite the fact that they were considered governments that were friendly to Israel. It's true that Eshkol gave detailed instructions to begin a hastened building in Eastern Jerusalem, and it's true that with the pressure of Yigal Alon and Moshe Dayan, Eshkol approved the first new settlement in "the City of the Forefathers," Chevron, but the Americans did not look fondly upon that idea, to put it nicely.
The change of rule in Israel, the famous "revolution," brought the Likud party to power, led by Menachem Begin who was known for his opinions supporting a complete and whole Israel. There was hope that perhaps the dream of generations would be fulfilled, and that the entire biblical Israel would be returned to the Jews. But the American government, headed by President Carter, thought otherwise. Whoever thought that the peace settlement with Egypt and the destruction of the entire Jewish settlement in Sinai were done with Israeli Joy, is very wrong. We ought to open the sitting documents and read what really happened, and then the meaning of American pressure on Israel will be understood. Even Menachem Begin, the symbol of the struggle [to Israelis] and the threat to Arabs, couldn't stand up to the Americans because he understood that being stubborn about Sinai would cause a rift with the United States and all that is implied by that.
Prime Minister Shamir, also strong willed and stubborn, learned the hard way that without the United States, Israel could find itself in an awful state of security. President Bush, Sr. and Secretary of State Baker didn't waste any opportunity to pressure Israel on fundamental matters, such as preventing [Israeli] participation in the first gulf war, and compelling [Israeli] participation in the Madrid Conference. Prime Minister Shamir did not want to fall into line with the Americans, but when Baker made clear to him what the American steps could be, Shamir agreed and participated in the international conference, which disgusted him and worried him. Then, Baker berated Shamir before the committee and demanded a complete stop to settlement activity, with heavy insinuations of what could happen to relations between the two countries. Relations reached a low point regardless, after the Americans reneged on their financial guarantee of 10 billion dollars that was supposed to aid with immigration absorption from the former Soviet Union. Sharon and Olmert also gave in to impositions by the United States, while most Israelis hold that the Clinton administration was certainly friendly to Israel. Still, Israelis should recall what is termed "the Clinton Parameters" from 2000 to understand his administration’s supportive position:
A: The establishment of a Palestinian state between 94 percent and 96 percent from the West Bank, in addition to a territory swap of 1 percent to 3 percent on the green line, and Palestinian sovereignty in all the territories of the Gaza Strip. In addition there will be a "safe passageway" connecting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
B: International forces will monitor security along the border with Jordan.
C: Israel relinquishes its sovereignty in the Jordan Valley. However, Israel's withdrawal will be gradual for security reasons, which, among others, will include having an army in the Jordan Valley for three years.
D: An ethnic divide of Jerusalem: The Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem will be under Palestinian sovereignty, and the Jewish neighborhoods will be under Israel sovereignty.
E: There will be Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount and Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall.
F: The right of return will not be practiced freely in Israel, and Palestinians will have the right of return to their national home.
G: Signing the agreement will mark the end of the conflict.
The Bush, Jr. administration was considered extremely friendly toward Israel. It's possible, that together with his plan called the "road map," which didn't even materialize with Israeli and Palestinian cooperation but rather with the quartet, is additional proof of the traditional American policy: freezing the building, withdrawal from territories built over the green line since 2000 — including dismantling illegal settlements — and a real acknowledgment of the Palestinian right to an independent country. Because of pressure from the document, Sharon had to accept the dictate and as did Olmert.
The above lines are nothing more than a short reminder of the history of U.S.-Israeli relations, which demonstrate that no American administration has ever accepted Israeli policy on settlements and Jerusalem, including the present one. Obama is determined to achieve his goal. Israel has two options: to shatter its friendship with the United States and place Israel's safety in danger, or to comply with Obama's demands, knowing that the current [Israeli] administration will in all likelihood not be able to survive.
U.S.-Israeli relations are in quite an intense crisis. There are those who are trying to beautify the picture, to sweeten the bitter pill that Netanyahu was forced to swallow during his last visit, and through familiar rhetoric, full of religious-Zionist pathos, put a spin on the new reality. Whoever wants to live in the paradise of fools, that is his full right. What's outrageous is the short national Israeli memory that puts us in deep trouble.
Generations of U.S. governments, from '67 until today, have opposed the Israeli assertion that a unified Jerusalem, forever and ever, is the exclusive capital of the Jewish nation. Not only is it a distortion of reality and diplomatic relations between Israel and the United States, but we're talking here about an attempt to deceive the public.
Prime Minister Levi Eshkol had to stand up to an American diplomatic offensive, the goal of which was to force Israel to return to the pre-Six Day War borders. The decision adopted by Security Council Resolution 242, was nothing but an obligation forced upon Israel to retreat to the '67 borders, more or less. American and European pressure was too strong, despite the fact that they were considered governments that were friendly to Israel. It's true that Eshkol gave detailed instructions to begin a hastened building in Eastern Jerusalem, and it's true that with the pressure of Yigal Alon and Moshe Dayan, Eshkol approved the first new settlement in "the City of the Forefathers," Chevron, but the Americans did not look fondly upon that idea, to put it nicely.
The change of rule in Israel, the famous "revolution," brought the Likud party to power, led by Menachem Begin who was known for his opinions supporting a complete and whole Israel. There was hope that perhaps the dream of generations would be fulfilled, and that the entire biblical Israel would be returned to the Jews. But the American government, headed by President Carter, thought otherwise. Whoever thought that the peace settlement with Egypt and the destruction of the entire Jewish settlement in Sinai were done with Israeli Joy, is very wrong. We ought to open the sitting documents and read what really happened, and then the meaning of American pressure on Israel will be understood. Even Menachem Begin, the symbol of the struggle [to Israelis] and the threat to Arabs, couldn't stand up to the Americans because he understood that being stubborn about Sinai would cause a rift with the United States and all that is implied by that.
Prime Minister Shamir, also strong willed and stubborn, learned the hard way that without the United States, Israel could find itself in an awful state of security. President Bush, Sr. and Secretary of State Baker didn't waste any opportunity to pressure Israel on fundamental matters, such as preventing [Israeli] participation in the first gulf war, and compelling [Israeli] participation in the Madrid Conference. Prime Minister Shamir did not want to fall into line with the Americans, but when Baker made clear to him what the American steps could be, Shamir agreed and participated in the international conference, which disgusted him and worried him. Then, Baker berated Shamir before the committee and demanded a complete stop to settlement activity, with heavy insinuations of what could happen to relations between the two countries. Relations reached a low point regardless, after the Americans reneged on their financial guarantee of 10 billion dollars that was supposed to aid with immigration absorption from the former Soviet Union. Sharon and Olmert also gave in to impositions by the United States, while most Israelis hold that the Clinton administration was certainly friendly to Israel. Still, Israelis should recall what is termed "the Clinton Parameters" from 2000 to understand his administration’s supportive position:
A: The establishment of a Palestinian state between 94 percent and 96 percent from the West Bank, in addition to a territory swap of 1 percent to 3 percent on the green line, and Palestinian sovereignty in all the territories of the Gaza Strip. In addition there will be a "safe passageway" connecting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
B: International forces will monitor security along the border with Jordan.
C: Israel relinquishes its sovereignty in the Jordan Valley. However, Israel's withdrawal will be gradual for security reasons, which, among others, will include having an army in the Jordan Valley for three years.
D: An ethnic divide of Jerusalem: The Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem will be under Palestinian sovereignty, and the Jewish neighborhoods will be under Israel sovereignty.
E: There will be Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount and Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall.
F: The right of return will not be practiced freely in Israel, and Palestinians will have the right of return to their national home.
G: Signing the agreement will mark the end of the conflict.
The Bush, Jr. administration was considered extremely friendly toward Israel. It's possible, that together with his plan called the "road map," which didn't even materialize with Israeli and Palestinian cooperation but rather with the quartet, is additional proof of the traditional American policy: freezing the building, withdrawal from territories built over the green line since 2000 — including dismantling illegal settlements — and a real acknowledgment of the Palestinian right to an independent country. Because of pressure from the document, Sharon had to accept the dictate and as did Olmert.
The above lines are nothing more than a short reminder of the history of U.S.-Israeli relations, which demonstrate that no American administration has ever accepted Israeli policy on settlements and Jerusalem, including the present one. Obama is determined to achieve his goal. Israel has two options: to shatter its friendship with the United States and place Israel's safety in danger, or to comply with Obama's demands, knowing that the current [Israeli] administration will in all likelihood not be able to survive.
I see the Israeli right-wing conservative is every bit as blind to the concerns and desires iterated by progressively-minded Israelis as consrvatives are here in Canada. There, as well as here, they seem blind at a very basic cognitive-epistemic level to opinion deviates save only those few that are endorsed by their authoritarian* leadership.
This observation goes a long ways toward eventually showing that the conservative behavioral syndrome (called by Altemeyer et al “RWA-SDO Authoritarian Embrace”) is not one born of ideological musings, but rather of a developmental deficit in the normal process of a child’s social-intellectual maturation. It appers to leave them with immature cognitive abilities and skills (perhaps most notably, ’empathy’…a social skill requiring high-order abstract thought manipulation, is almost always lacking as an important consideration in almost any given conservative’s worldview).
*Athoritarianism (or RWA) correlates with political conservativism at .73 (very strong).