WarSclerotic

Netanyahu, defiant, stands his ground – Ben Smith – POLITICO.com.

The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is delivering a defiant reply to the White House in a speech to the pro-Israel group AIPAC this evening, responding to American attempts to damp down their harsh words with an insistence on Israel’s right to construct housing in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu, who apologized for the announcement of new housing in Jerusalem during Joe Biden’s visit ten days ago, does not reprise his apology, according to prepared remarks. Instead, he reminds the White House that the new housing — though a thumb in the eye — did not actually violate any commitment he’d made, as any settlement freeze always excluded Jerusalem.

“The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel cannot be denied.The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied,” Netanyahu says. “The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 year ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today.Jerusalem is not a settlement.It is our capital.”

“Everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement.Therefore, building them in no way precludes the possibility of a two-state solution,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu returned in his speech to familiar themes: The historic assaults on the Jewish people, his theoretical desire for Palestinian independence, and the sole fault of Palestinian leaders in preventing it.

“Peace requires reciprocity .It cannot be a one-way street in which only Israel makes concessions. Israel stands ready to make the compromises necessary for peace. But we expect the Palestinian leaders to compromise as well,” he says.

Netanyahu concluded with a short tribute to the American-Israeli relationship, mentioning President Obama once twice and thanking him, and Congress, for military cooperation.

But his speech also included a clear rebuttal to Israelis and American Jews who have pleaded with him to mend his relationship with the White House.

“The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself,” Netanyahu says.

Koch on Obama and Israel: Why the trust is gone.

By Ed Koch

I consider the Obama administration’s recent actions against the Israeli government to be outrageous and a breach of trust. I refer to the denunciations by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials The world knows what happened; nevertheless, I will try to put it into context.

Vice President Joe Biden was in Jerusalem to convey to the Israelis and the world that the United States government is committed to protecting and assuring the security of Israel from attack. While he was there, an Israeli government minister announced that the Israeli government had authorized the construction of 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem to be occupied by Jews. Currently, 280,000 Jews live in East Jerusalem, and these apartments were to be added to an existing complex, built on land owned by Jews; about 250,000 Jews live on the West Bank outside of Jerusalem.

The timing of the Israeli government’s announcement was unfortunate and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for it, but it did not mark any change in the Israeli government’s policy. That policy is and has long been to allow construction of homes for Jews in East Jerusalem.

Now a little history. In 1947, the United Nations passed a resolution authorizing the creation of a Jewish state within the British Mandate of Palestine. After it declared independence in 1948, Israel was immediately attacked by the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Although Israel repelled the attack, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem, separating it from its Western half. Ultimately, a cease fire was arranged by the U.N. and for the next 19 years until 1967, Jordan occupied East Jerusalem, including the old city, which historically had been the capital of King David’s ancient kingdom. In 1967, the Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria again sought to destroy the State of Israel, but Israel prevailed in six days and conquered the Jordanian-held East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. During the 19 years that Jordan occupied East Jerusalem, it expelled all of the Jews living in what was historically the Jewish Quarter, and literally destroyed every synagogue and the homes of the Jews. When Israel reunited all of Jerusalem, Jews were, of course, allowed to live in any part of the city, and today, more than a quarter of a million Jews live in East Jerusalem. Numerous Arabs live there as well.

For quite some time and certainly since the Gaza War, the Palestinian Authority has broken off direct negotiations with Israel which had been ongoing since about 1993, in an effort to create two states, one Jewish and one Palestinian, living side-by-side in peace. This so-called two-state solution always seemed out of reach, notwithstanding the efforts of Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to jumpstart negotiations.

President Obama has sought to revive the negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. He called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to assist by committing Israel to stop building new apartments in East Jerusalem and new settlements on the West Bank. In a move that Hillary Clinton, according to The New York Times, praised as “unprecedented,” Netanyahu agreed to a ten-month settlement moratorium on the West Bank. However, he refused to stop Jews from living in any part of East Jerusalem, which is considered by Israelis to be an inseparable part of their capital. Both the Palestinian Authority and the U.S. government, ultimately accepted Netanyahu’s offer, albeit grudgingly, and the Palestinian Authority agreed to engage in indirect talks through the American mediator George Mitchell.

Given this history, it was a shock to the Israeli and American supporters of Israel to have Joe Biden, a great friend of Israel, make the extraordinary harsh statement he made denouncing the future construction of 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem. The Vice President’s condemnation was even more baffling because, as The Times of March 12th reported, “he spent most [of the previous day] expressing his personal devotion to Israel, as well as the Obama administration’s ‘iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security.’” As someone high in political life once said to me after I mentioned to him the violation of his iron-clad commitment to me on a subject involving the mass transit fares in New York City, “Next time, get it in steel. Iron breaks.”

But even more disturbing than the Vice President’s reaction were the comments and implicit threats voiced by Hillary Clinton in a telephone conversation she had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, described in The Times of March 12th. “In a tense, 43-minute phone call on Friday morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s plan for new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem sent a ‘deeply negative signal’ about Israeli-American relations.”

Under President Clinton and George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Ministers have offered the Palestinians a state of their own on virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza, with land swaps to compensate for any portion of the West Bank that would remain in Israel, but those offers were rejected by the Palestinians.

What is most disturbing about the truly harsh and inflammatory rhetoric of both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton directed at the government of Israel, is that it is speculated President Obama himself may have ordered Biden and Clinton to make the statements they made. The Times of March 16th reported, “…the President was outraged by the announcement of 1,600 housing units in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem during Mr. Biden’s visit, administration officials said. Mr. Obama was deeply involved in the strategy and planning for Mr. Biden’s visit and orchestrated the response from Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton after it went awry, these officials said.” President Obama and his administration’s overly harsh public reaction to the construction in East Jerusalem appears to have emboldened Israel’s enemies and provided a cover for their extremist views. It has also created a serious crisis of confidence among the Israeli public that it can depend on this administration for its security.

There will be an effort this week when Prime Minister Netanyahu meets with President Obama to mend fences. There will be huggy-kissy pictures with Hillary and handshakes by Bibi Netanyahu with Joe Biden and the President, but the relations will never be the same again. Humpty Dumpty has been broken and the absolute trust needed between allies is no longer there. How sad it is for the supporters of Israel who put their trust in President Obama.

Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave.

Atacking an ally to appease foes – The Trentonian Opinion: Serving Trenton and surrounding communities. (trentonian.com).

By DIANA WEST

Whew. We can breathe easier now that the Obama administration has taken a tough-as-scimitars line with Israel. Its blueprints for new housing, the administration says, pose a dire threat to U.S. troops.

As Vice President Joseph Biden put it, referring to a new housing project in Jerusalem: “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

In other words, it’s not the Muslim-made IED planted in the roads of Helmand Province that’s the problem; it’s the Jewish-built condo in Jerusalem.

The effects of such babble are as palpable as they are shameful.

The same week the Israeli housing project launched Obama administration diplomatic fireworks, the White House and most media ignored the Palestinian Authority’s commemoration of Dalal Mughrabi — a mass murderess who led an attack killing 38 Israelis in 1978. She now has a public square named in her honor.

In its silence on this calumny, the U.S. government has acquiesced to the jihadist narrative that Jews building homes in Israel’s capital is incitement, while Muslims naming public squares for terrorist mass murderers of Jews is a ho-hum event. On with the “peace process.”

This constant, drip, drip, drip policy of appeasing Islamic extremists has been eroding our national security posture since long before 9/11. It has been reshaping a world perspective that conforms with that of the Islamic world.

This eruption over housing in Jerusalem — an “insult,” an “affront,” said White House adviser David Axelrod — strangely parrots the language of a purportedly “offended” Islam.

Gen. David Petraeus put a military gloss on this same policy in recent testimony before the U.S. Senate.

He spoke of “insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace,” the polite way of alluding to the open-ended jihad against Israel. This, he went on to say, presents “distinct challenges” to America’s interests in the region.

Why? “The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” he said. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question” limits U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the region and “weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.” Meanwhile, the general said, “al-Qaida and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”

Subtext: If Israel would shrink into nothingness, everything would be beautiful.

Petraeus’ testimony about “Arab anger” echoes his concerns, as reported by Foreign Policy online, about Arab complaints on “the Palestinian issue.” Petraeus, Foreign Policy writes, believes this anger is “jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region.”

Question: Since when is assuaging “Arab anger” the concern of U.S. war planners? Answer: Since U.S. war planners became U.S. counter-insurgency planners — and Petraeus literally helped write the book on counterinsurgency. Playing to Arab demands, to Muslim demands, is the heart of counterinsurgency’s “hearts and minds” doctrine.

The general is employing the classic buzz terms — Arab “anger,” Arab “perception” of the “Palestinian question,” etc. — that are hallmarks of the Arab-ist slant on the jihad against Israel.

This jihad is now picking up a terrifying speed after the Obama administration’s apology to Libya’s dictator Moammar Gadhafi, its “outreach” to Iran’s tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and, let us not forget, President Obama’s bow to Saudi King Abdullah..

—Syndicated columnist and author Diana West blogs at dianawest.net.

Sounding like the biggest friend Israel’s ever had, Clinton also warns that the “status quo” cannot be maintained.  No mention of “containing” Iran, rather “preventing” Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Mixed signals.  Watch the 45 minute speech and decide for yourselves.

Hillary, AIPAC leaders: Making the hurt plain—but the love, too | JTA – Jewish & Israel News.

WASHINGTON (JTA) – It was like one of those “good” family fights the shrinks on TV urge in marital spats: Make the hurt plain, but make the love plain, too.

The leaders of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not back down from their bottom lines when Clinton spoke Monday morning at the annual AIPAC policy conference: The Obama administration will make its unhappiness clear and public when it regards an Israeli action as undermining the peace process; AIPAC would prefer such talks take place behind closed doors.

For AIPAC, Jerusalem is off the table; for Clinton it’s very much part of the discussion.

Yet Clinton and the speakers before her — AIPAC President Lee Rosenberg and Executive Director Howard Kohr — made it emphatically clear that they not only remembered the “good times,” they are trying to bridge the gaps as well.

Clinton’s speech culminated two weeks of tensions sparked when Israel announced a major housing start in eastern Jerusalem during a visit to Israel by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that had been aimed at underscoring the close U.S.-Israel friendship and restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

“It is our devotion to this outcome — two states for two peoples, secure and at peace — that led us to condemn the announcement of plans for new construction in East Jerusalem,” Clinton said Monday. “This was not about wounded pride. Nor is it a judgment on the final status of Jerusalem, which is an issue to be settled at the negotiating table. This is about getting to the table, creating and protecting an atmosphere of trust around it, and staying there until the job is finally done.”

Clinton’s mild rebuke brought surprising, if light, applause. It was a mark of the success of repeated pleas from AIPAC’s leadership to the 7,500 activists in attendance to keep things civil. Clinton earned standing ovations coming in and out, and there was no audible booing.

Kohr and Rosenberg were equally as determined to make Israel’s point.

“Jerusalem is not a settlement,” Kohr said in the line of the morning that brought the greatest cheering. “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.”

Kohr also made the case for keeping such disputes out of public view.

“When disagreements inevitably arise, they must be resolved privately as is befitting close allies,” he said.

That’s been the mantra of AIPAC, along with the center and right in the pro-Israel community — and Clinton turned it around.

The announcement of new construction in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, she said, “exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region hope to exploit. And it undermines America’s unique ability to play a role — an essential role, I might add — in the peace process. Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don’t agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally.”

It was clear, though, that Clinton was sensitive to Israeli and pro-Israel complaints that the opprobrium she had heaped onto Israel — she called the announcement an “insult” — was one-sided and that she had ignored Palestinian violations.

In fact, her spokesmen have condemned Palestinian incitement. And Monday, Clinton picked up the two signal issues that have exercised Israel’s advocates: the naming of a public square in Ramallah for a terrorist who led a deadly 1978 attack, and Palestinian rioting greeting the rededication of an Old City synagogue destroyed during the 1948 Independence War.

“These provocations are wrong and must be condemned for needlessly inflaming tensions and imperiling prospects for a comprehensive peace,” Clinton said to applause.

AIPAC and the Obama administration have differences on Iran as well: AIPAC activists will push hard for enhanced Iran sanctions when they lobby Tuesday afternoon on Capitol Hill, while the administration wants time to exhaust the prospect of multilateral sanctions.

Here, though, Clinton was able to throw the crowd some meat, saying that whatever sanctions emerged, they would not be glancing.

“Our aim is not incremental sanctions but sanctions that will bite,” she said. “It is taking time to produce these sanctions, and we believe that time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts. But we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring these nuclear weapons.”

Rosenberg, just inaugurated as AIPAC’s president and a key fund-raiser in candidate Barack Obama’s presidential run, also made sure to hit affectionate notes, noting Clinton’s pronounced pro-Israel record in her eight years as a U.S. senator from New York. Among other things, she led the successful effort to force the International Committee of the Red Cross to recognize Israel’s Magen David Adom.

Kohr, the longtime AIPAC director, used the policy conference to outline the group’s priorities. He focused on gaining Israel its deserved entry into the international community through membership in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which coordinates economic policy in the developed world; getting Israel a seat on the U.N. Security Council; and forging a closer relationship between Israel and NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

All have been Israeli priorities for years, but throughout the Bush administration and the prevalence of neoconservatism in its foreign policy, AIPAC’s embrace of these issues was low-grade. In fact, in making the case for advancing Israel in the United Nations, Kohr even asked: “Now, some of you may be asking, why does it matter?”

He ran through an explanation of the U.N. Security Council’s powers, but left unsaid why else it matters: The Obama administration’s emphasis on multilateralism and on working out differences in international forums. Kohr was telling his activists that this was the new Obama order.

Perhaps most telling was where Clinton ad-libbed away from her prepared remarks and revealed a soft affection for Israel and its friends.

She delivered a prepared line about “pioneers who found a desert and made it bloom,” then paused and said, “There were people who were thinking, how could that ever happen? Ahh, but it did.”

She amended a line about warriors offering peace to describe them as “so gallant in battle.” Clinton asked the crowd if they thought she thought it necessary to speak “because AIPAC can get 7,500 people in a convention center? I don’t think so.”

In her lengthiest unscripted passage, Clinton recalled traveling the world during the 1990s, the heyday of Arab-Israeli peace talks, and never hearing anyone mention the conflict outside the confines of the Middle East. These days, she said, its periodic explosions into war is often the first item, however far-flung her travels.

It was a gentle unsettling of the belief that the Israel-U.S. relationship exists in a bubble unaffected by outside realities.

“We cannot escape the impact of mass communications,” Clinton said. “We can only change the facts on the ground.”

Why Obama Was So Angry at Netanyahu – Michael Hirsh – Newsweek.com.

It’s Iran, Stupid

The real reason why President Obama was so angry at Israel after Joe Biden’s visit.

Even as the United States and Israel patch up their latest rift—with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invited to meet President Obama on Tuesday—considerable confusion remains about what caused it. Various reasons have been given for why the president was so incensed by the embarrassing announcement of new settlement construction during Vice President Joe Biden’s trip two weeks ago. Obama was said to be particularly upset because he thought he had Netanyahu’s understanding, following a similar imbroglio last fall, that Washington wouldn’t be taken by surprise by such an announcement again. Other reports suggested that Biden had warned Netanyahu that U.S. troops in the region were being endangered.

But the main reason for Obama’s ire, according to a senior administration official, who asked not to be named, was that Biden had gone to Israel specifically to deliver a message to Netanyahu: the main issue is now Iran and its nuclear program, and we can’t allow ourselves to be distracted by other issues or to jeopardize the emerging alliance against Tehran in support of tough sanctions—an alliance which includes most of the leading Arab states. In particular, Netanyahu—who campaigned for office himself on the primacy of the Iranian nuclear issue—can’t afford to allow Israel’s leading defender on this issue, the president of the United States, to look as if he’s weak or lacking influence. (Haaretz‘s Aluf Benn first suggested Biden’s secret message in an essay for NEWSWEEK last week.)

And that of course is precisely what happened. Netanyahu’s government made Obama look bad, undermining the effort against Iran. After the Israeli Interior Ministry announced the construction of an additional 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem, the headlines were dominated by the apparent breach between the United States and Israel, the outraged protests of Arab leaders and Palestinians, and all anyone could talk about was how U.S.-Israeli relations were at a 35-year low,, and the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian dispute that has fed both Iranian and Al Qaeda propaganda for years.

That was nothing less than a strategic bungle by Netanyahu’s government, Obama administration officials believe. “They need to keep their eyes on the ball over the next 12 months or so,” the senior administration official told me. “It’s make or break time. Iran is the No. 1 priority, it’s the No. 2 priority, and it’s the No. 3 priority. Everything we do needs to be seen through the lens of how to stop Iran from getting nuclear capability. So they need to keep their focus. Why would you want to do anything now to make the president look less strong or effective?”

All of this comes as the Obama administration is quietly lining up a new set of measures against Iran beyond what is being discussed in the U.N. Security Council, administration officials say. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continued to attack Tehran rhetorically Monday, describing Iran as a “menace” in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual convention and calling for sanctions that “bite.” Stuart Levey, the Treasury under secretary who has led this effort for both the Obama and Bush administrations, is expected to implement a new series of sanctions against Iranian companies controlled by the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps and other entities. Both U.S. and foreign officials say the new measures will likely add to whatever sanctions are imposed in any forthcoming U.N. Security Council resolution.

Perhaps the most ironic dimension of the current U.S.-Israeli tensions is that before both men took office, it was Netanyahu who sought to impress upon then-candidate Obama the primacy of the Iran issue. Netanyahu hammered that point home to candidate Obama during their first meeting in July 2008 at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, according to Uzi Arad, Netanyahu’s national security advisor. Without addressing Iran’s attempted rise as a nuclear-powered regional hegemon, there can be no security, Netanyahu said. “Should one fail to neutralize that Iranian threat now, it would undercut anything that would be achieved with the Palestinians, Syria, or Lebanon,” Arad told me at the time, relating Netanyahu’s message. “If Iran became nuclear it would mean the victory of the militants in Hamas and Hizbullah and undercut the moderates.”

Obama apparently took that message to heart. Netanyahu, who maintains he didn’t know about the announcement during the Biden visit, should remember it as well.

Michael Hirsh is also the author of At War with Ourselves: Why America Is Squandering Its Chance to Build a Better World.

Why Obama Was So Angry at Netanyahu – Michael Hirsh – Newsweek.com.

Will they still stick with Obama?.

By JONATHAN S. TOBIN
21/03/2010 22:31

Even his most ardent Jewish fans must be wondering about his support for Israel.

Last summer, Alan Dershowitz wrote “Has Obama Turned on Israel?” in The Wall Street Journal, a defense of Barack Obama’s policy toward Israel and, by extension, the numerous Jewish Democrats who had supported the president’s election and stuck by him despite a rocky first few months in office. Reacting to what he acknowledged was a “harsher approach toward Israel” than had been displayed during his campaign, Dershowitz insisted that despite disputes over settlements, the new administration was still solid on what was really important: safeguarding Israel’s security.

But as I wrote at the time in “Obama Turned on Israel but Dershowitz Won’t Turn on Obama” in Commentary magazine, rather than encouraging the Palestinians and their supporters in the Arab world to finally make peace, Obama’s decision to distance himself from Israel encouraged the foes of the Jewish state to dig in their heels and to wait for more American pressure. By picking a needless fight with Israel over settlements and expanding a long-standing disagreement over Jewish settlement in the West Bank into one about the right of Jews to build in Jerusalem, Obama changed the dynamic of the relationship into one characterized by distrust rather than friendship. That’s why Israelis consider him the least popular American president since Jimmy Carter.

BUT BY the start of Obama’s second year in office, the situation appeared brighter. His commitment to engagement with Iran had wasted a full year on fruitless diplomacy that merely replicated the failures of the Bush administration and gave Teheran another year to advance its nuclear ambitions before the West even considered serious steps to stop the regime. But the contempt with which Iran had treated his outstretched hand had appeared to sober Obama up about engagement. Having failed in an effort to topple the newly elected Israeli government led by Binyamin Netanyahu in 2009 and disappointed by the Palestinians’ refusal to talk peace, the president seemed to have finally grasped the limitations on his power to remake Middle East.

But optimism about Obama’s attitude toward Israel was dashed earlier as Washington seized on a poorly timed announcement of a housing project in Jerusalem during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden to set off a major confrontation with the Netanyahu government. By choosing to turn a minor gaffe into a major incident while ignoring far worse Palestinian provocations and specifically attempting to muscle Netanyahu into a pledge to stop building in east Jerusalem – something no previous administration had ever done – Obama showed that pressure on Israel remained high on his agenda. Having already reneged on pledges of American support for Israel’s holding on to parts of the West Bank and Jerusalem, the president is doubling down on his drive to bludgeon the Jewish state into further concessions without any hope of reciprocation from the Palestinians.

While it was apparent that one of Obama’s goals in this controversy was to have another go at either chasing Netanyahu from office or altering the composition of his coalition to slant it more to the left, Washington has placed the onus for the certain failure of peace talks on Netanyahu despite the fact that he has accepted the principle of a two-state solution, frozen building in the West Bank and sought to minimize interference with the lives of Palestinians. And by responding more forcefully and with greater anger to a minor dispute with its ally than to the endless atrocities and provocations committed by the Islamist regime in Teheran, Obama has sent a clear signal that no one need take his pledge to stop Iran seriously.

ALL OF this raises the question of what Obama’s Jewish supporters have to say now. While Dershowitz and other Jewish Democrats may still claim that statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other officials of America’s resolve to stand by Israel reflect the real nature of the relationship, the latest round of bitter and pointless controversy over Jerusalem orchestrated by Obama must leave even the most ardent fans of the president wondering.

Some on the Jewish left, like the J Street lobby, are happy to see the administration bashing the Netanyahu government because it hopes American pressure can reverse the outcome of the last election in which Israel’s left-wing parties crashed and burned. But while the majority of American Jews may not be particularly fond of Netanyahu or supportive of West Bank settlers, they, like the vast majority of Israelis, do not wish to see Jerusalem divided. Nor do they believe that Israel needs to be saved from itself.

Like most Americans, they understand that the Palestinians, both the moderates of Fatah and the extremists of Hamas who rule Gaza, are the real obstacles to peace, not a democratically elected government of Israel.

It remains to be seen how much damage the decision by the Obama-Clinton team to distance itself from Israel and to prevaricate on Iran will affect American Jewish support for the administration. The overwhelming majority of American Jews remain die-hard Democrats and it is unlikely that most will let even the most egregious betrayal on Israel affect their votes. But in a year when widespread dissatisfaction with the president’s policies will put his congressional supporters in electoral jeopardy this November, even a small slippage in Jewish support may prove crucial in several states. While health care and other domestic hot-button issues may dwarf concern over Israel’s fate, the impact of Obama’s disdain for the Jewish state could still turn out to be an issue that haunts him in the coming months and years.

Two years ago, Obama wooed American Jews at an AIPAC conference by pledging his devotion to the alliance with Israel. As AIPAC begins its annual conference this week, the distance that Obama’s administration has traveled from those pledges will be hard to ignore.

The writer is executive editor of Commentary magazine and a contributor to its blog at http://www.commentarymagazine.com.
jtobin@commentarymagazine.com

JPost.com | BlogCentral | In the Trenches | Iran: we can have our (yellow) cake and eat it, too.

You can practically hear the laughter from Teheran.

By a combination of weaving, bobbing, feinting, parrying, lying, deceiving, bribing, threatening, blustering, winking, delaying, hiding, flaunting and strutting, Iran’s leaders believe they’ve run circles around the West.

Sad to say, they may not be entirely wrong.

Before our very eyes, they’ve gone from no nuclear program to a full-fledged effort. Sure, there have been fits and starts, but the general thrust is forward, and there’s been no stopping them. From a few dozen spinning centrifuges to thousands, the capacity to enrich uranium has been growing.

And with it, for all the world to see, Iran’s military capacity, including its ballistic missile technology, only increases in strength.

So far, every theory of how to deal with Iran has failed.

In the 1990s, the Europeans trumpeted “critical dialogue” with Iran. That proved a joke. The dialogue was about lucrative business. The criticism, such as it was, had no impact on commerce, so it meant nothing to Iran.

At the same time, the Clinton administration sought to improve ties with Teheran. Travel to Iran was encouraged in the belief that people-to-people contact could send a positive signal. Wrestlers went to a sports competition in Iran, hoping to replicate the US-China “ping-pong diplomacy” of another era. Iran, however, was unmoved by the gestures.

In 2002, Iran was found to have hidden nuclear enrichment facilities. The EU took on the challenge of negotiating with Teheran. Years passed and the EU had little to show for its efforts, other than countless flights, meetings, and empty declarations.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration kept Iran at arm’s length, issuing warnings and threats. Then, for a brief moment, just after the American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iran must have been worried, wondering if it might be the next target.

But it wasn’t long before the tables were turned. Not only had Iran lost all fear of American power, but it saw a historic chance to gain influence in Iraq through the majority Shi’a population and America’s increasing post-invasion challenges.

Washington continued to sound tough, but Teheran saw through it. The US was already engaged on two fronts – Iraq and Afghanistan – and didn’t have the appetite, much less the support, for a third.

One potential danger for Iran came from the US Treasury Department’s determined efforts to cut it off from global financial markets and discourage major companies from doing business with it. That effort proved quite robust and chalked up major successes.

Still, from the Iranian viewpoint, the pressure could somehow be handled.

For every bank or multinational that pulled out of the Iranian arena, another presumably could be found to take its place. Greed is a powerful motivating force around the world, and the Iranians have been prepared to exploit it. So is solidarity, and Iran has found those who, for reasons of pro-Iranian or anti-Western thinking, have been ready to help it. And deception is yet another tool in the Iranian kit. It has developed a global network of front companies, dummy corporations and cooperative banks.

Israel has been another worrisome factor for Iran, perhaps the most consistent. Iranian leaders ascribe all kinds of (demonically) powerful attributes to Israel and the Jews. And indeed, from time to time, acts of sabotage, with no acknowledged authors, have complicated the Iranian nuclear program.

Yet, even President Bush, seen as a close friend of Israel, refused Israeli requests for bunker-busting bombs and the right to fly over US-controlled Iraq.

Lurking in the back of the Iranian mind surely must have been a fear that oil-importing nations would one day wake up and take steps to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. But, again, Teheran has been lucky.

The US had a unique opportunity to do exactly that after 9/11, when the nation would have followed an appeal from Washington. But alas, there was no appeal. Instead, Americans continued to drive their gas-guzzling Hummers, Escalades, Tahoes and Suburbans, seemingly indifferent to the geopolitical implications of their choices.

Meanwhile, the Chinese and Indian economies took off, fueling still greater demand for energy resources. And as oil prices went through the roof, Iranian coffers were filled.

With the advent of the Obama administration in Washington, US policy on Iran took a different tack. The earlier American approach of isolation hadn’t worked. The extended hand, alongside sanctions, became a new watchword. After 14 months, it’s safe to say that’s had no effect, either.

This sharp turn led to an ambitious offer to enrich Iranian uranium abroad and return it for use in the Teheran Research Reactor. That went nowhere, though valuable months passed as Iran choreographed its multi-phased response.

So now the focus is on ramping up sanctions.

Mind you, more than two years have passed since the third sanctions resolution was adopted by the UN Security Council. During those 24 months, Iran has thumbed its nose at the earlier sanctions resolutions, other UN measures calling for cooperation, various “firm” deadlines for action set by the West, and repeated criticism by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In the meantime, of course, Iran has pursued its nuclear program, announced construction of new enrichment facilities, declared it will enrich uranium to 20 percent (which is a quantum leap towards weapons-grade), been compelled to admit that it hid an enrichment facility near Qom, and cracked down ruthlessly on opposition forces after the fraudulent June elections.

And yet, the US today says it is only certain of seven of the 15 Security Council votes for a sanctions resolution. Again, Teheran must be laughing. It assumes that any eventual resolution will be watered down to attract the holdouts and, in any case, there will be ways around it.

The theory was that Iran would become more isolated over time. The world would conclude that, if Teheran didn’t accept the extended hand, it would have only itself to blame for the consequences.

Sounds plausible, but it seems that no one counted on other critical factors.

First, China proved to be a much tougher nut to crack than anyone anticipated. It’s not yet ready to walk away from its close ties with Iran. Beijing has yet to be moved by Washington’s appeals to China’s global responsibility, assurances of Saudi reserve capacity to make up for lost Iranian oil (countered by an Iranian offer of discounted prices), and portrayals of a Middle East in turmoil after an Israeli strike, if sanctions aren’t implemented.

Second, Turkey was elected to the UN Security Council just as its foreign policy began moving in a pan-Islamic direction.

Third, Brazil also joined the UN Security Council. Brasilia has sought to strengthen links with Teheran. The Iranian president was in the Brazilian capital last November, and the Brazilian president is slated to reciprocate this spring.

And fourth, the perception of US power and influence has declined, making it still more difficult for Washington to achieve its diplomatic goals.

Right now, it seems, China isn’t listening, and our plea for China to separate bilateral differences (arms sales to Taiwan, the visit of the Dalai Lama to the White House, pressure on the Chinese to revalue their currency, US tariffs on Chinese tires, etc.) from multilateral cooperation is falling on deaf ears.

Nor are Brazil and Turkey in any particular listening mode. And Russia is only half-listening, angered that Teheran rejected Russia’s attempted mediating role, yet not eager to follow the US lead in a world where it appears possible to bring America down a few notches

The sanctions most likely to inflict real damage on Iran – imports of refined energy products, since Iran doesn’t have sufficient domestic capacity – are unlikely to be adopted. First, the French foreign minister said last fall that such sanctions would hurt people in the street rather than the government. More recently, the Obama administration has opposed House and Senate bills calling for punishing energy companies that supply the Iranian market, fearing it will further complicate Washington’s diplomatic efforts.

As for the military option, Teheran may be calculating that, in the end, it won’t be used. For a variety of reasons, Washington would be reluctant to attack, and it appears to be trying to restrain Israel as well. Indeed, readers in Teheran of Foreign Affairs, the influential American magazine, will surely have been struck by the cover story in the current issue, which sets forth a US strategy for living with the fact of an Iranian bomb.

Thus, from Iran’s viewpoint, things may not look so bad.

Sure, there’s been internal unrest, but it’s been handled ruthlessly and with strikingly little international outcry.

Sure, the economy is suffering from high unemployment, inflation and corruption, but what else is new? Anyway, oil prices are inching northward again, a good sign for Teheran.

Sure, there are attempts to isolate the country, but they haven’t proven particularly effective. From Malaysia to Venezuela, from Brazil to Turkey, from China to Syria, interest in Iran remains high. And the Europeans are only slowly moving to ratchet down their extensive ties, while the gaping holes in the US boycott approach were revealed in a front-page New York Times story a few weeks ago.

Sure, there is always the danger of a military attack, but fear of repercussions – spiking oil prices sending the fragile global economic recovery into a tailspin; vulnerable US targets in neighboring Afghanistan, Iraq and the Gulf; heavily-armed Iranian proxies on three Israeli borders; and Iranian-backed Hizbullah sleeper cells around the world – are likely to temper the appetite for a strike, if there is any to begin with.

That’s why Iran’s leaders are laughing.

But is the laughter warranted? I wonder if there’s a Farsi equivalent for the English expression, “He who laughs last, laughs loudest.”