United States, Israel on collision course

With the election of Obama, the United States has moved dramatically to the left in its foreign policy at just the time that Israel, which seems likely to return Bibi Netanyahu to office in early February, is moving to the right. A collision is almost inevitable.

Caroline Glick, the highly astute conservative columnist for the Jerusalem Post, writes that the “international community” believes that Obama “will move quickly to place massive pressure on the next Israeli government to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the interests of advancing a ‘peace process’ with the Palestinians and the Syrians.”

She notes that “people who have been in close contact with Obama’s foreign policy transition team have privately acknowledged that the widespread belief that Obama will move swiftly to put the screws on Israel is fully justified. According to one source who has spent a great deal of time with the transition team since last month’s U.S. elections, Obama’s people are ‘scope-locked’ on Israel.”

Meanwhile, in Israel, there is a growing consensus, reflected in public opinion surveys, that trading land for peace is a chimera. Netanyahu points out that “we do not have a viable partner with whom to negotiate peace.” The Palestinian Authority does not speak for the people of either Gaza or the West Bank, and Hamas, which probably does (it won the election) does not want to be a party to any peace agreement. Recent experience suggests that Hamas will quickly install rocket launchers on any territory Israel concedes, using it not as a basis for peace but as a platform from which to kill more Jews.

Former Prime Minister Olmert and the candidates of the left, Labor’s Ehud Barak and Kadima’s Tzipi Livni, are deeply committed to land for peace. Their rejection by the Israeli electorate — the anticipated outcome of the Feb. 10 election — will signal a bold departure in the political consensus of the Jewish state, a consensus that flies directly in the face of Obama’s likely policy.

The difference between the United States and Israel also extends to the realm of how strongly they oppose Iranian development of nuclear weapons. While Iran moves closer and closer to a bomb that could and will be used against Israel, Obama speaks of extending the American “nuclear umbrella” to cover Israel. Reading between the lines, this means that he doesn’t think he can stop Iranian nuclear ambitions and will retreat to a policy of deterrence, accepting a nuclear Iran in the bargain.

If Netanyahu wins the election, he will bring with him a determination to stop Iranian nuclear weapons no matter what and a refusal to concede more territory in the name of the peace process. But Obama’s foreign policy team will be focusing on pushing Israel in just the opposite direction.

The result is likely to be the most significant divergence between Israeli and American policies since 1956, when President Eisenhower sided with the Arabs to halt the British-French-Israeli invasion of Suez. The United States has tremendous leverage over Israel, both military, financial and political. And Obama’s ability to carry the Jewish vote by a wide margin despite his likely Middle East policy makes him largely immune to the kind of political pressure that has disciplined American presidents in the past and forced them to incline toward accommodating Israeli views on the Middle East.

But Israel probably has the military capacity to bomb Iran and to win the Middle East war against Syria, Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah that is likely to result. Unlike Olmert, Netanyahu will use ground troops right off the bat and will fight such a war to win and to win big. But they may have to do it without their strongest ally: the United States.

COPYRIGHT 2008 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN; DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

TinCan, Hutch

Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 1:17pm.

A Navy question of sorts...

Why don't the US and Israel stage an Aegis Weapon System with the land based C-RAM Phalanx CIWS anti-missile system to shoot down those rockets Hamas shoots from Gaza? Surely the system are more than capable, aren't they?

login to post comments

Jeff

Submitted by hutch866 on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 1:49pm.

According to Wikipedia, Israel is considering buying them for just that purpose. I, myself would be concerned about where the shells that miss would land, at 3000 to 4000 20mm rounds per minute that's a lot of ordnance flying around. You would also need a lot of them to cover that large an area( I'm assuming the missiles that Hamas are firing are fairly portable) with their limited range. I'm just guessing of course, as the Navy didn't see fit to put these systems on WWII Destroyers like I was on, they were just coming on line as I was getting out. As a matter of fact, unless a jet was coming straight at us, our gun turrets wouldn't train around fast enough to bear on a jet, let alone a missile.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

login to post comments

Aegis Smaegis

Submitted by TinCan on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 1:48pm.

My tin can had three 5" main battery gun mounts, a few torpedoes, some asroc launchers and depth charges. Don't think they'd work too well. Maybe that youngster Hutch can address your question.

login to post comments

Tin

Submitted by hutch866 on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 1:51pm.

We didn't even have the depth charges, LOL. I'm glad I'm still a youngster to someone.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

login to post comments

Jeff, cost

Submitted by The Wedge on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 1:30pm.

The Aegis weapon system costs far more to operate per shot than the terrorists cost to launch these rockets. Plus there is no guarantee that the explosive head wouldn't hit the ground and still explode.

login to post comments

Jeff

Submitted by Fred Garvin on Thu, 01/08/2009 - 1:25pm.

Better to eliminate the cause than to just treat the symptom.

login to post comments

Didn't the President elect....

Submitted by Cyclist on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 6:07pm.

campaign for a stronger Israel?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

login to post comments