Is it a greyhound?
October 24, 2012, 2:00 pm
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
There’s been much talk of President Obama throwing a certain country under the bus. According to an op-ed in today’s NYTimes, it appears that not just one president, but several have done this.
However, it is not the one currently being accused. The author of “Who Threw Israel Under the Bus?” is a former head of Mossad and adviser to Ariel Sharon.
It is truly amazing how the RNC has been able to re-write both history and public sentiment by ignoring factual events; painting the DNC with terms such as (putting daylight between US and Israeli policies), etc.
This article doesn’t even touch upon the 1956 Suez Conflict and the steps/threats/demands made by Eisenhower that compelled Israel to end the conflict.
From the article: “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.”
Ms. Steinfels: that history upsets you?
In all of these instances, very different foreign policy circumstances were in play, as I’m sure you know.
It is Mr. Halevy’s opinion that “a Republican White House acted in a cold and determined manner.” In some of those circumstances U.S. national interest pre-empted Israeli national interest; that is how nation-states behave. In some other circumstances, the U.S. policy withheld funds that might indirectly support Israeli policies the U.S. opposed.
In general, the U.S. government is “extremely sensitive to Israel’s National pride, strategic interests or sensitivities.” Is that always in the strategic interests of the United States? or Israel? National pride? sensitivities? That’s a two-way street, isn’t it?
Mr. Halevy’s non-endorsement of the Republicans is opportune for the Obama campaign, but is it germane to this campaign since in respect to Israel Mr. Romney seems not to be a classic Republican.
The nasty little state of Israel should be under the bus. And seriously, do we imagine that Israel–nuclear weapons or not–will still be around in a hundred years? The whole Moslem world feels Israel like a splinter under its fingernail. The key is the way Israel treats the Palestinians. Somewhere, somehow, in some way, somebody will have to make a meaningful compromise and Israel will have to become a different kind of nation with a different philosophy about how to survive in the middle of a Moslem world. Of course, the crazies who inhabit the settlements will have to go. No easy thing. Nothing but trouble ahead. But a hundred years from now?
Doesn’t help to refer to “the nasty little state of Israel,” nor should it be “under the bus.” I am making my way very slowly through a book, “A Line in the Sand,” about French and British machinations in the Middle East during and after World War I. They are responsible for the shambles that is part of that section of the Middle East. Drawing borders for their own interests rather than the inhabitants. We see the consequences not only vis a vis Israel but Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. If the word “nasty” makes any sense in foreign affairs better to apply it to our allies, the British and the French.
We should just keep repeating…”It’s the settlements stupid’ ..
Doesn’t help to refer to “the nasty little state of Israel,”
——
Are you surprised that the poster who used that disgusting phrase would think it would be acceptable/welcome here?
Gerelyn: Not everyone is as subtle as you or as capable of making your fine distinctions.