US diplomacy is going bankrupt

US diplomacy is going bankrupt, Israel Hayom, Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi, July 29, 2014

[C]urrent American “policy” stands in blatant opposition to American national interests as defined by Obama when he was first elected.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agree to an immediate, unconditional cease-fire was not the first instance in which an American president bore his entire weight on Israel to get it to hold its fire and to bring about an end to fighting in the Israeli-Arab arena.

In 1956, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower put heavy pressure (which included a suspension of economic aid) on Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion following Operation Kadesh, to get the prime minister to withdraw immediately from the Sinai Peninsula. U.S. President Ronald Reagan didn’t dissemble either his anger or frustration with the expansion of the First Lebanon War in July 1982, and his administration took a series of specific, albeit limited, steps to punish the government of Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

But in contrast to those instances, when a certain strategic logic anchored U.S. conduct, current American “policy” stands in blatant opposition to American national interests as defined by Obama when he was first elected. Beyond maintaining the “special relationship” between the U.S. and Israel, the president declared his ambition to establish political and security cooperation with the moderate Sunni camp in the Arab world, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to prevent a dangerous regional vacuum from being formed after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. And now, in polar opposition to these goals, which were intended to protect the Middle East from radical forces, we are witnessing a behavioral pattern that gives de facto backing to the standout representative of radical Islam — Hamas.

This pattern reached its apex two days ago in a phone conversation between Obama and Netanyahu, but was preceded by the bizarre actions of Secretary of State John Kerry. Just when the time was right to revive the vision of a regional defense alliance with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Gulf States (Qatar excluded), who are united in their strong opposition to Hamas and its ilk, we are seeing an American policy line based on ignoring that axis completely, particularly the Egyptian component.

This means that the deeply rooted American diplomatic thinking about the region has been breached, and it can’t be explained by considerations of practical diplomacy. As far as we can tell, it’s a combination of an ongoing grudge against Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, whom the administration is not willing to forgive for taking power by not-strictly democratic means, Kerry’s deep frustration with Israel over his failed mediation attempts, and presidential anger at Jerusalem for the way it rejected the draft cease-fire agreement the administration put together with its lackeys and Hamas representatives.

But beyond these explanations, there is a fear that the situation is even worse, and that the U.S.’s cockeyed view of Hamas shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the group’s character and the significance of the terrorist threat. Indeed, in his ambition to distance himself from the ideological and strategic legacy of his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has crossed the Rubicon and adopted the narrowest possible definition of this challenge. Therefore, to the same extent he did not hesitate to nurture his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, which ruled the Land of the Nile with an iron fist in the days of Mohammed Morsi (a Hamas patron), the American president has no qualms about trying to justifying his wrongdoings while all the frightening aspects of the terrorist state Hamas created in Gaza are being exposed.

Nothing remains to be done but hope that the administration will shake off its delusions, and sooner rather than later

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

One Comment on “US diplomacy is going bankrupt”

  1. Steve Canyon's avatar Steve Canyon Says:

    ” . . . current American “policy” stands in blatant opposition to American national interests as defined by Obama when he was first elected. . . .”

    Things change.

    From one outsider’s view, Israel is between a rock and several hard places, including its own existence as a nation-state. Will that state be perceived by others as a democracy, or as a de facto Volkstaat/Boerestaat aberration of S. Africa?


Leave a reply to Steve Canyon Cancel reply