Jeff Ballabon:
I want to share with you excerpts from two pieces which are alarming intimations of the situation Israel will face starting in January 2009 - indeed, the crisis already is beginning. There are many similar and ominous harbingers, but these crossed my radar screen within the past 12 hours and I think it is worth taking notice. The pieces are included below in their entirety.
The first piece is from Ha’aretz and it reports that one of the Middle East’s premier scoundrels – Syrian dictator/Iranian marionette Bashar Assad – announced that he will not negotiate with Israel until Bush is out of the White House:
“ Syrian President Bashar Assad told the French daily Le Figaro Monday that he will not begin direct talks with Israel while U.S. President George W. Bush is in office. Assad said that American involvement was crucial to the talks' success, and "frankly, we do not think that the current American administration is capable of making peace." ”
The second is from an opinion piece in the current issue of the Atlantic:
“…[W]hat if Iran continues its cat-and-mouse negotiating mixed with intransigence? Israel’s future in this regard is indeed bleak. For even if a moderate Republican realist like John McCain, or even worse, a liberal-left internationalist like Barrack Obama, is elected president, each is likely to subsume Israel to larger geopolitical considerations, rather than hold it up as an icon to be both supported and worshipped in the post-9/11 era, as George W. Bush has done.” [link]
Many who fear – legitimately - the approach a President Obama (with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress!) would take to the Middle East believe that President McCain is the solution. While it is true that McCain could not possibly be worse than Obama from the standpoint of Israel’s security, it is a mistake to think that McCain is anything like George W. Bush. If Israel has a very tough and aggressive leadership which takes concrete and painful steps to stabilize the region and protect its interests, then it likely will find McCain a good and rock-ribbed ally. Israel’s political star rose in America precisely because it was unapologetically aggressive about protecting Jewish and Israeli interests – whether in unilaterally declaring statehood, capturing Eichmann, launching war preemptively in ‘67 and against Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure in ‘81, refusing to negotiate with terrorists and engaging in daring raids like Entebbe and in exacting punishment, like after Munich – and the list goes on.
Israel’s enemies gave her the opportunity again when Hezbollah attacked and the country was ready, but Israel’s political class was not; and that changed Israel’s image even to as committed a believer and friend as George W. Bush. The ongoing atrocity of Sderot continues to testify that Israel is not what she used to be. If Israel continues to pursue the conjoined fictions that “the local Palestinians want peace with Israel and therefore we have to create a new state for them,” McCain is far more likely to get fed up and do a deal with those more likely to be able to stabilize the radicals in the region – not to mention bring down oil prices.
Privately, Israeli officials at the most senior levels often will reveal their “strategy” – which is that the illusion of a “peace process” or at least negotiations is useful to keep the West off Israel’s back. But, they argue reassuringly, they have no real illusions that anything concrete will ever happen because the Palestinians simply are not interested in or ready for the creation of a state. Thus, they have concluded, the longer we talk the longer we retain the status quo – and they are willing to endure kidnapped soldiers and traumatized towns to retain this status quo. Indefinitely.
The waiting game is a mistake on many fronts. First, because the Arabs already have displayed a far greater capacity to endure an even more miserable status quo than the very westernized Israelis. Second, because the US itself is losing patience with the charade and its impact on America’s relationships. Third, because the pretense is frustrating Israel’s most idealistic citizens and ardent allies. Fourth, because the Democrats who control Congress are eager to give the EU and the UN a more significant role in the Middle East. Fifth, because Hamas and Hezbollah - still terror organizations dedicated to the complete destruction of the State of Israel - have begun to show signs of greater realism and maturity and discipline than the Israeli government.
It is ugly but hard to avoid: Israel’s credibility and usefulness as a strategic ally have plummeted. And – unless Israel’s leaders change course quickly and clearly - that spells trouble, no matter who sits in the White House next year.
posted by: jrtelegraph
As an American who has supported Israel, Jeff Ballabon's article is right on. Israel's present leaders are well on their way to making "never again" a dead page in history. I fear for Israel.
Posted by: Sharon M Robinson | July 14, 2008 at 09:13 AM