Contrasting approaches on comments that are ‘offensive and inappropriate’

“I will continue to defend the security of Israel’s citizens with determination, responsibility and good judgment,”

LOTL..
14 January '14..





From Haviv Rettig Gur, The Times of Israel:

In a rare public rebuke of an Israeli official, a spokeswoman for the US State Department took Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon to task on Tuesday evening for calling US Secretary of State John Kerry “messianic” and “obsessive” over the latter’s pursuit of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

“The remarks of the Defense Minister [Ya'alon], if accurate, are offensive and inappropriate especially given all that the United States is doing to support Israel’s security needs,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a brief statement Tuesday in Rome, according to Reuters.

“Secretary Kerry and his team, including General [John] Allen, have been working day and night to try to promote a secure peace for Israel because of the Secretary’s deep concern for Israel’s future,” she added. “To question his motives and distort his proposals is not something we would expect from the defense minister of a close ally.” ....

....Ya’alon lashed out at Kerry and savaged Washington-led peace talks in private conversations, according to a report Tuesday in a major Israeli daily.

The unsourced report in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper recounted the defense minister lambasting the proposed security arrangement drawn up by Kerry as part of his peace deal as being “not worth the paper it is printed on” and as a plan that wouldn’t provide security for Israel.

The report also quoted Ya’alon as calling Kerry “inexplicably obsessive” and “messianic” in his efforts to coax the two sides into a peace agreement. Ya’alon reportedly said Kerry has “nothing to teach me about the conflict with the Palestinians. All that can ‘save us’ is for John Kerry to win a Nobel Prize and leave us in peace.”

Although he didn't deny its substance, Ya’alon presented a softer tone Tuesday afternoon in responding to the report, but continued to warn of the dangers of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

ה (בוגי) יעלון - [[Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon

3 hours ago via mobile

בנוגע לפרסום הבוקר: היחסים בין ארצות הברית וישראל הם אינטימיים ובעלי משמעות רבה עבורנו. ארצות הברית היא ידידתנו הגדולה ביותר ובעלת הברית החשובה ביותר שלנו, וכשיש מחלוקות אנחנו מלבנים אותן בתוך החדר, כולל עם מזכיר המדינה קרי איתו אני מקיים שיחות רבות בנוגע לעתידה של ישראל. אמשיך לשמור בנחישות, באחריות ובשיקול דעת על ביטחונם של אזרחי ישראל.

“Relations between the United State and Israel are intimate and important to us. The United States is our greatest friend and most important ally, and when there are disagreements we air them inside the [discussion] room, including with Secretary of State Kerry, with whom I have held many discussions about the future of Israel,” Ya’alon said in a statement to the media.

“I will continue to defend the security of Israel’s citizens with determination, responsibility and good judgment,” he added.

On the other hand, back in November 2011 at the G-20 Summit in Cannes, an open-mic moment between American President Obama and French President Sarkozy elicited the following what might be construed as comments that are ‘offensive and inappropriate’.

From Judith Miller, Fox News:

Open mic. Open mouth. Insert foot.

It seems that politicians never learn: wearing a microphone is like carrying a loaded weapon. You can never be sure when it will go off, or in this case, go live.

The French government is deeply “chagrined” – now we know why it’s a French word – about the latest diplomatic “faux pas” that is turning into a major “scandale”: the all-too-candid conversation between French President Nicholas Sarkozy and President Obama about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the G-20 Summit in Cannes.

Unaware that the microphones used to enable translations were live, Sarkozy let Obama know just how he felt about his Israeli counterpart: "I can't stand him,” the French president was captured on tape as saying. “He's a liar." The normally silver-tongued American president did not object. "You’re fed up with him,” Obama replied. “But I have to work with him every day."

The French government, and even some journalists, say that the media shouldn’t have reported the exchange because it was picked up before the two leaders knew they were on-mic. In fact, most of the French press did not initially report it because Sarkozy's office had asked journalists not to turn on the headsets until the press conference began. Hence, the comments, under French media traditions, were considerate private, or as we say in America, “off the record.” In other words, we weren’t playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules (definitely not a Frenchman). But Arret Sur Images, a French website that analyzes media coverage of politics and current affairs, apparently didn’t’ get the “do not publish” memo....

And how did this revelation play out?

Glick - With friends like these

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
10 November '11

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/11/with-friends-like-these.php

The slurs against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu voiced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama after last week's G20 summit were revealing as well as repugnant.

Thinking no one other than Obama could hear him, Sarkozy attacked Netanyahu, saying, "I can't stand to see him anymore, he's a liar."

Obama responded by whining, "You're fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day."

These statements are interesting both for what they say about the two presidents' characters and for what they say about the way that Israel is perceived by the West more generally.

To understand why this is the case it is necessary to first ask, when has Netanyahu ever lied to Sarkozy and Obama? This week the UN International Atomic Energy Agency's report about Iran's nuclear weapons program made clear that Israel - Netanyahu included - has been telling the truth about Iran and its nuclear ambitions all along. In contrast, world leaders have been lying and burying their heads in the sand.

Gardiner - Barack Obama’s Israel-bashing is an embarrassment for the leader of the free world

Niles Gardiner
The Telegraph
08 November '11

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100115203/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-israel-bashing-is-an-embarrassment-for-the-leader-of-the-free-world/

The White House likes to portray President Obama as a staunch supporter of Israel, and is always quick to defend him against the charge that he has weakened US support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East. The reality, however, is very different from the Pennsylvania Avenue spin. As I’ve noted in previous pieces, the Obama administration has a striking track record of insulting Israel, and the relationship between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his US counterpart has been unremittingly tense. And after his latest bout of foreign folly, the image of Barack Obama as an Israel-basher will be even further entrenched.

Thanks to an article by French news site Arrêt sur Images, Obama’s distinctly unflattering impression of Israel’s leader is plain for all to see. According to the French piece, reported here by Israeli media outlet Ynetnews, the French and US presidents both sneered at Mr. Netanyahu in a private meeting at the G-20, while their microphones were still on, audible to journalists:

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!" The remark was naturally meant to be said in confidence, but the two leaders' microphones were accidently left on, making the would-be private comment embarrassingly public.

The communication faux pas went unnoticed for several minutes, during which the conversation between the two heads of state – which quickly reverted to other matters – was all but open to members the press, who were still in possession of headsets provided by the Elyse for the sake of simultaneous translation during the G20 press conference.

Tobin - Resenting Israel, Not Netanyahu

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
09 November '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/09/obama-sarkozy-netanyahu-resentment/

Barack Obama’s dislike of Benjamin Netanyahu was not a state secret prior to the publication of his candid exchange about the Israeli prime minister with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. So the fact the two have a low opinion of Netanyahu and consider dealing with him to be a burden isn’t exactly news. But while much of the commentary about this kerfuffle has centered on the question of who should be most embarrassed by the revelation — Netanyahu or his two highly placed critics — there is a more important point here.

Netanyahu has a well-earned reputation as a prickly and somewhat unpleasant fellow to deal with–in Israeli political circles as well as the world of international diplomacy. But when Sarkozy and Obama grouse about him, the resentment they are giving voice to hasn’t all that much to do with whether or not Netanyahu is a charm school dropout. What really annoys them is his inherent skepticism about the peace process.

The Commentator - Instant View: Sarkozy’s Netanyahu insult shows he's the aspiring clown of Europe

The Commentator
09 November '11

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/613/instant_view_sarkozy_s_netanyahu_insult_show

Nicolas Sarkozy has said Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is a “liar” in conversation with a pliant Barak Obama. But both men are mediocrities with no room to criticise anyone

If there’s one European leader who must be trembling in his boots at the thought that Silvio Berlusconi might soon be forced from office it is surely Nicolas Sarkozy.

For, if the Italian leader goes, the title “Clown of Europe” is Sarkozy’s for the taking.

Only last month he was caught telling British Prime Minister David Cameron that he had “missed a good opportunity to shut up” over the woes of the Eurozone.

His incompetence as president is rarely disputed even by his supporters, many of whom are so appalled by his performance they’re leaving in droves for the far-Right alternative offered by Marine Le Pen.

But this strutting mediocrity’s arrogance knows no bounds.

Navon - Sarkozy, c’est fini

Emmanuel Navon
For the Sake of Zion
08 November '11

http://navonsblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/sarkozy-cest-fini.html


French songwriter Hervé Villard became famous overnight in 1965 with his love song “Capri, c’est fini” (Capri, it’s over). The song literally sounds like a broken record, but Villard made a fortune out of it (he sold 2.5 million records). Could it be that disappointment is so universal a feeling that it speaks to our hearts even with the dullest melody? And would I get 2.5 million downloads on I-tunes if I were to write a song on “Sarkozy, c’est fini?” After all, there are more than 2.5 million people who are disappointed in Sarkozy. I’m no musician, though, so I shall settle for the following words.

Since “making aliyah” (immigrating, ascendency-wise) to Israel eighteen years ago, I forwent my right to vote in French elections. I no longer share the destiny of France, a country I voluntarily left. In 2007, however, I made an exception. Nicolas Sarkozy impressed me, and I made a special trip (twice) to the French consulate to give the guy my vote. Sarkozy was an outsider. The son of a Hungarian immigrant, he was raised by a Jewish grandfather and grew-up as the ugly duckling in Paris’ posh Neuilly suburb. As opposed to the rest of France’s political leadership, he was not intellectually cloned by ENA, the French elite school for government. But, mostly, he sounded sincere when he said that he intended to replace French economic dirigisme with pro-market policies, and when he spoke fondly of Israel and of America. Indeed, it seemed too good to be true –and it was.

Sarkozy turned out to be a temperamental control-freak whose economic reforms are meager and whose foreign policy record is disastrous. His “Mediterranean Union” project was a flop. Besides angering his European partners (especially Germany) for not consulting with them on his half-cooked ideas (yet expecting them to share the cost of their implementation), Sarkozy made a fool of himself. In July 2008, he threw a grand party in Paris to launch his now defunct “Mediterranean Union” with embarrassing guests such as Hosni Mubarak and Bashar Assad. Sarkozy thought that his “Mediterranean Union” would convince Turkey to give-up its EU bid, while Erdogan had already made the choice of a pan-Islamic foreign policy.

Schanzer/Rosett - At The U.N., A French Twist

Jonathan Schanzer/Claudia Rosett
Wall Street Journal Europe
pundicity.com
October 20, 2011

http://schanzer.pundicity.com/10547/at-the-un-a-french-twist


The Palestinian drive for United Nations membership is backfiring on one of its most vocal early supporters, French President Nicolas Sarkozy. What began as a French bid to one-up a weak U.S. foreign policy is now devolving into a struggle over continued U.S. funding for the only significant U.N. organization headquartered in Paris: the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco).

In recent weeks, while the Palestinians have pressed forward with a bid for full membership in Unesco, both French diplomats and U.N. officials have been quietly back-pedaling on the issue. Like so many maneuvers at the U.N., this reversal appears to be less about grand matters of principle than about money.

According to American law since the 1990s, the U.S. is prohibited from giving funds to any part of the U.N. system that grants the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) the same standing as member states. This could amount to a shortfall of more than $70 million per year to Unesco.

Currently, Unesco operates with an annual budget of more than $325 million, to which the U.S. is by far the largest contributor, giving 22%. France, while prizing Unesco as its showpiece U.N. tenant, chips in just 6.1%.

In years past, France has already tasted what it means for Unesco to forgo U.S. funding. In the 1980s, the U.S. withdrew from Unesco, returning only in 2003 under President George W. Bush. Apparently, the Quai d'Orsay has no wish to repeat that experience. French diplomats are now saying that, despite their earlier backing of the Palestinian unilateral bid, Unesco is "not the right time, nor the right place" to wrestle with the question of Palestine.

Yet only in March, Mr. Sarkozy had elbowed past a dithering President Obama, signaling that France would likely support the international recognition of a Palestinian state. "The idea that we have time [to negotiate a deal between Israel and the Palestinians] is a dangerous idea. We must finish," Mr. Sarkozy said at the time. French diplomats privately indicated that the Palestinian statehood initiative would "level the playing field" between Israel and the Palestinians, and lead the way to an equitable solution to the conflict. In July, France announced it would upgrade the PLO delegation in Paris to a diplomatic mission. Spain, Portugal, Norway and a handful of other European states soon did the same.

Tobin - Shalit Deal is No Harbinger of Peace

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
19 October '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/19/shalit-deal-peace-hamas-israel/

The debate about Israel’s decision to pay an exorbitant ransom to secure the release of kidnapped solider Gilad Shalit continues to rage, with many still lamenting the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian terrorists. But the real danger from this deal is not, as some have stated, that it will encourage terrorism, because Hamas needs no encouragement on that point. Rather, it is the false narrative promoted in some quarters that the deal legitimizes Hamas as a peace partner, and Israel should be pushed to open talks with the terrorist group.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said yesterday he thought the Shalit deal ought to inspire hope for the moribund peace process. The theme was taken up in earnest by Israeli left-winger Uri Dromi in today’s International Herald Tribune in which he argues that not only does the exchange prove Israel can and will deal with Hamas (despite its identity as a bloodthirsty terrorist group), but it may prove to be a harbinger of a new round of negotiations in which Hamas will take its place among the peacemakers. Nothing could be further from the truth, both in terms of Israeli intentions and that of the Palestinians.

It should be admitted the Shalit deal meant Israel was dealing with Hamas, albeit indirectly via Egyptian and German mediators. But there is nothing new about this. Israel has always needed to have contacts with the enemies on its borders. The Shalit deal is in this respect no different from the cease-fires negotiated with Hamas since it seized control of Gaza in 2006 or with the indirect talks conducted with various enemies throughout Israel’s history on procedural issues or prisoner exchanges.

Meltzer - Et tu, Sarkozy?

Yoel Meltzer
yoelmeltzer.com
19 October '11

http://yoelmeltzer.com/et-tu-sarkozy/




Recently, French president Nicolas Sarkozy came out with some surprisingly harsh statements against Israel while concomitantly expressing strong support for the justness of a Palestinian state. Moreover, the French leader even claimed “the Palestinians have been waiting for a state they deserve for 60 years now”.

Since many people in the world unquestionably believe that this claim is based upon historical facts and truths, I have written the following open letter to Sarkozy in order to debunk this claim.

Dear Mr. Sarkozy,

As part of your recent outburst against Israel in which you termed Abbas a “statesman” for his supposed willingness to come to the negotiating table as opposed to Netanyahu whom you described as being someone that “never fails to disappoint us”, you added a most interesting line. While discussing your support for the creation of a Palestinian state you justified your stand by stating that “the Palestinians have been waiting for a state they deserve for 60 years now”.

I hate to burst your bubble but not everyone agrees with that sentence or the implicit accusation that Israel is to blame for not helping the Palestinians attain statehood. History, in fact, seems to say otherwise.

As I’m sure you know, following World War 1 and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire the Middle East was divided up by the great powers of the day. While most of the territory in the region was given to the Arabs for the creation of several new countries, one area, via the Mandate for Palestine, was set aside to be the national home for the Jewish people. Based upon the recognition of Jewish historical rights in Palestine, the mandate charged the British with facilitating the creation of a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River. However, despite the fact that the mandate was a legally binding document that was conferred at the San Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations, the British disregarded their responsibility and in an act of duplicity transferred roughly 80% of Palestine to the Arabs for the creation of Transjordan, the forerunner of Jordan.

Fresnozionism - Sarkozy is closer to Israel’s position than Obama

Fresnozionism.org
31 July '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/07/sarkozy-is-closer-to-israels-position-than-obama/

This is interesting, but probably will make no difference:

At a press conference in Madrid last week, [French] Foreign Minister Alain Juppe publicly declared that “there will be no solution to the conflict in the Middle East without recognition of two nation-states for two peoples. The nation-state of Israel for the Jewish people, and the nation-state of Palestine for the Palestinian people.” Then, lest anyone overlook the statement’s significance or think it a mere slip of the tongue, his ministry yesterday circulated copies of it.

This is truly groundbreaking. Until now, no EU country has been willing to state publicly that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement must recognize Israel as the Jews’ nation-state, though the EU routinely details the concessions it expects Israel to make…

So what made Sarkozy get off the fence and approve Juppe’s public declaration of support for a Jewish state? It’s not that he suddenly joined the Zionist movement; neither have most of the countries favoring such language. Rather, they have finally grasped that no agreement is possible without satisfying Israel’s minimum requirements. No Israeli government will ever sign a deal that mandates full withdrawal to the 1967 lines, lacks adequate security provisions or doesn’t acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. The major Israeli parties differ on precisely where the border should run and precisely what security arrangements are required, but they all agree on these basics.

Sarkozy, however, has now gone one step further: He’s realized since Israel won’t sign a deal without such provisions, Europe does need to start publicly demanding these concessions of the Palestinians. Otherwise, they will keep deluding themselves the world will eventually force a complete Israeli capitulation.

– Evelyn Gordon, Commentary

You will recall that President Obama also referred to “Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people” in his May 16 proposal. But he did not insist that the Palestinians agree to it before Israel withdraws to pre-1967 lines! This makes his statement no more than window-dressing.

Gordon notes that Sarkozy does intend that recognition must be part of any agreement — putting him closer to Israel’s position than Obama — but so far the rest of the Europeans have not gone along. She writes that

Obama And Sarkozy Like To Use Israel As A Club

Daled Amos
15 December '10

Last year, I posted about an article in The Washington Post, about how the US used the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran--and the chaos that would result--in order to convince China to support a condemnation of Iran for flouting UN resolutions regarding its development of nuclear power:

Two weeks before President Obama visited China, two senior White House officials traveled to Beijing on a "special mission" to try to persuade China to pressure Iran to give up its alleged nuclear weapons program.

If Beijing did not help the United States on this issue, the consequences could be severe, the visitors, Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Bader, both senior officials in the National Security Council, informed the Chinese.

The Chinese were told that Israel regards Iran's nuclear program as an "existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don't listen to other countries," according to a senior administration official. The implication was clear: Israel could bomb Iran, leading to a crisis in the Persian Gulf region and almost inevitably problems over the very oil China needs to fuel its economic juggernaut, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. [emphasis added]

Apparently China was impressed by the warning.

(Read full "Obama And Sarkozy Like To Use Israel As A Club")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Non-existent 'state' sends 'ambasador' to European country

Carl
Israel Matzav
05 December '10

Incoming Chairwoman of the House Foreign Relations Committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl) has blasted Brazil for its severely misguided and regrettable decision to recognize the imaginary state of 'Palestine.'

Brazil's decision "is regrettable and will only serve to undermine peace and security in the Middle East," charged Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Ros-Lehtinen, set to chair the panel come January, said "responsible nations" would wait to take such a step until Palestinians return to direct talks with Israel and recognize its "right to exist as a Jewish state."

Congressman Elliot Engel (D-NY) also blasted Brazil.

Brazil's decision also drew fire from Democratic Representative Eliot Engel, who said it "is severely misguided and represents a last gasp by a Lula-led foreign policy which was already substantially off track."

Engel tied the move to Lula's "coddling" of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and warned that Brazil "wants to establish itself as a voice in the world, but is making the wrong choices as it tries to do so."

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

France's chutzpah

Soccer Dad
31 May '10

From NRO:

France's President Sarkozy termed Israel's conduct "disproportionate"; Chancellor Angela Merkel's administration noted that Israel's actions did not conform to proportionality; the European Union's high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, demanded that Israel end its blockade of the terrorist entity Hamas, which controls Gaza, without any preconditions such as the release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit and the cessation of Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.

I don't know how many of you recall France's greatest military adventure of the past generation:

The Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior has been blown up in Auckland Harbour, New Zealand.

One of the 11 crew members on board has been killed. He has been named as Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira, 33.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The rightful heirs of Palestine

Sarah Honig
Another Tack/JPost
14 May '10

In 1799, just before he failed to conquer Acre, Napoleon Bonaparte penned a momentous letter “to the Jewish nation.” At that point, still confident of military triumph, he perceived himself as the great liberator of history’s most oppressed people – the “Israelites.” They constituted “a unique nation, which, during thousands of years, lust of conquest and tyranny have deprived of its ancestral lands, but not of its name and national existence!”

When Napoleon aspired to establish a renascent state in Palestine, it was unquestionably to be a Jewish state. He had no doubt whose ancestral land this was, with whom it’s associated and who were the only people who ever made it a distinct sovereign unit.

Addressing Jews as the “rightful heirs of Palestine,” Napoleon announced he was fighting to avenge “the almost 2000-year-old ignominy imposed upon you; and, while time and circumstances would seem to be least favorable to a restatement of your claims or even to their expression – and indeed compellingly advocate their complete abandonment – France offers you at this very time, and contrary to all expectations, Israel’s patrimony!”

BUT WHEN the current French head of state speaks of the rightful heirs of Palestine, he means Arabs – descendants of foreign conquistadors or of itinerant latecomer migrants from the entire Mideast – who have only in recent decades discovered the European-minted moniker of Palestine (mispronounced as Filastin). Nicolas Sarkozy wants Arab sovereignty established here posthaste, without any pesky pedantry about Jewish rights, not even about bothersome Jewish self-defense.

Sarkozy fails to mention that the Arab state he fancies on Israel’s eastern flank, will leave Israel’s soft underbelly – its densest population center – exposed and that the Jewish state’s narrow waistline would shrink to nine untenable miles. Minor quibbles like Jewish survival mustn’t interfere with automatic compliance with his grand scheme.

Sarkozy moreover is petulant and demonstratively impatient. His will must be done and done now. He, after all, is a superior purveyor of wisdom who must be dutifully acknowledged as such with no hesitation or deviation.

When obedience isn’t immediate or sufficient, Sarkozy is understandably piqued. That’s why he lashed out at Israel’s prime minister for being too slow on the uptake. “I’m disappointed with him,” Sarkozy reportedly said. “Despite the friendship, sympathy and commitment we have toward Israel, we still can’t accept this foot-dragging. I don’t understand where [Binyamin] Netanyahu is going or what he wants.”

Herein lies the crux. Sarkozy isn’t just making imperious demands; he is issuing his diktats as a friend. Professed friends presume they possess moral authority to put their protégés in their place. Righteous rebuke from friends is meant to sting far more than chiding from unfriendly sorts.

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Allies Be Wary

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
17 March '10

Robert Kagan says Israel shouldn’t take it personally:

Israelis shouldn’t feel that they have been singled out. In Britain, people are talking about the end of the “special relationship” with America and worrying that Obama has no great regard for the British, despite their ongoing sacrifices in Afghanistan. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has openly criticized Obama for months (and is finally being rewarded with a private dinner, presumably to mend fences). In Eastern and Central Europe, there has been fear since the administration canceled long-planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic that the United States may no longer be a reliable guarantor of security.

And that’s just the beginning of the scorned-ally list. As Kagan notes, the Obami are infatuated with engaging foes — Iran, China, Russia, and a hodge-podge of despotic regimes. He explains:

The president has shown seemingly limitless patience with the Russians as they stall an arms-control deal that could have been done in December. He accepted a year of Iranian insults and refusal to negotiate before hesitantly moving toward sanctions. The administration continues to woo Syria and Burma without much sign of reciprocation in Damascus or Rangoon. Yet Obama angrily orders a near-rupture of relations with Israel for a minor infraction like the recent settlement dispute — and after the Israeli prime minister publicly apologized.

This may be the one great innovation of Obama foreign policy. While displaying more continuity than discontinuity in his policies toward Afghanistan, Iraq and the war against terrorism, and garnering as a result considerable bipartisan support for those policies, Obama appears to be departing from a 60-year-old American grand strategy when it comes to allies.

It is therefore not purely a matter of Middle East policy when Obama kicks Israel in the shins.

(Read full post)
.

Analysis: Virtual diplomacy, real damage

Jonathan Spyer
Mideast/JPost
22 November 09

The statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Riyadh last week expressing French willingness to mediate talks between Syria and Israel is the latest indication of Syria's emergence from diplomatic isolation.

Damascus has largely rebuilt its links with Europe and the Arab world. There is now a real possibility of a revival of indirect talks between Israel and Syria. Such talks, if they take place, are almost certain to get nowhere.

Still, the near guarantee of failure of any talks does not render Sarkozy's offer insignificant. It is to be hoped that the Netanyahu government resists the temptation to reopen the Syrian track.

Why might the government be tempted to enter indirect negotiations with Syria at this point? It is an article of faith among European countries and in the current US administration that a peace process between Israel and one or other of its enemies is essential. Israel's international diplomatic position currently leaves a lot to be desired. The perceived US distancing from Israel has emboldened those very considerable elements in Europe who would like to see increased pressure on the Jewish state.

There appears to be little hope of substantive movement in stalled talks between Israel and the troubled, perhaps moribund Palestinian Authority. Talks with Syria could provide the illusion of diplomatic motion which could help alleviate claims that Israel represents an intransigent barrier to progress toward regional stability.

(Read full article)
.

Iran, Its Hostages and the West

The folly of expecting good faith from Iran's hostage-taking rulers.

Wall Street Journal
18 November 09

Iran's big news yesterday is that the government will formally kill five people who participated in June's pro-democracy rallies. Consider, though, the implications for the West's peace-brokers of the case of Frenchwoman Clotilde Reiss.

It is now 20 weeks since Ms. Reiss was arrested while trying to leave Iran and 12 weeks since she was released to the French Embassy "to await her return to France," in the words of President Sarkozy. She's still waiting.

This week, the Islamic Republic resumed legal proceedings against her. Iran has refused to let her leave the country, and the French have complied. But by delivering her to an Iranian court for proceedings this week, Mr. Sarkozy is gambling with the 24-year-old's life. Coming from a politician who has offered stern denunciations of Tehran's nuclear programs, one has to wonder how that decision was made.

In its 30 years, the Islamic Republic has used assassination squads, fatwas, terrorism and hostage-taking as tools of its war with the West. A nearly unbroken string of outrages connects the taking of the U.S. embassy in 1979 to the death sentence demanded for writer Salman Rushdie in 1989 to, more recently, the grabbing of British sailors in 2007. Add to that the detention and trial of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi earlier this year, the 12-year prison sentence meted last month to Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakshsh and, most recently, the charges of espionage leveled against the three American backpackers who stumbled across the Iranian border in July.

Ms. Reiss's ordeal is merely of a piece of this. But it ought to be an instructive piece, particularly as Iran's nuclear ambitions come closer to realization. That's the real significance of this week's report by the International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran's formerly secret uranium enrichment facility near Qom, which the agency concluded had no possible relevance to any purported civilian power program. Once Iran goes nuclear, the whole world becomes its hostage.

For too long the West has responded to these various outrages by offering Iran little more than meek compliance, plus a clean slate the moment any one crisis is resolved. Now President Barack Obama is again beseeching Iran to take the nuclear deal offered to it last month. Nobody should expect Iran's leaders to show good faith. Not when their days are spent executing protestors and abusing the likes of Clotilde Reiss.
.