The more things change...

Tue, 01/13/2009 - 12:34pm

Several prominent bloggers (including Andrew Sullivan, Juan Cole, and Matt Yglesias) have taken note of Ehud Olmert's remarkable statement claiming credit for getting the United States to abstain from the U.N. Security Council Resolution on Gaza, even though the United States had helped write it. Sullivan suggests that the episode reveals just how differently the government of Israel was treated compared to other governments during the Bush years.

He's right, but this pattern of behavior didn't start in 2001. As a number of participants have chronicled, the Clinton administration let the government of then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak determine the direction and pace of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations and Barak often treated Clinton and his aides in a remarkably peremptory fashion. Even Dennis Ross's memoir The Missing Peace (which is generally sympathetic to the Israeli perspective), betrays repeated irritation at Barak's highhandedness (see especially pp. 530-532, 539, 550-551, 578-580). The apotheosis was Clinton's abortive meeting with Syrian President Hafez al Assad in Geneva in March 2000. Undertaken at Barak's insistence, Clinton later complained to the Israeli PM that the meeting made him feel "like a wooden Indian sitting there doing your bidding."

DAVID SILVERMAN/Getty Images

Stephen M. Walt | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

American politicians are not

by tach on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 10:29pm

American politicians are not deferring to their Israeli counterparts as much as they are cowed into submission by the Israel Lobby in America.

Revealing and confusing

by Dani K. Nedal on Wed, 01/14/2009 - 3:00pm

Olmert's cabinet insists that the PM's account of the UN vote is accurate, while White House sources deny it categorically. The whole episode is not only revealing, but also somewhat nonsensical. Even if he is telling the truth, (in fact, especially so) what could Olmert possibly have to gain by putting US officials in such an uncomfortable position?

Olmert's standing with his

by J Thomas on Thu, 01/15/2009 - 5:24pm

Olmert's standing with his own voters matters far more to him than any US politician's standing with US voters.

Bragging about this to get

by Dani K. Nedal on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 2:28pm

Bragging about this to get votes would be counterproductive, to say the least. Israelis don't care all that much about UN resolutions, so the impact on public opinion was extremely limited. Olmert is already with one foot out the door anyway, so it makes even less sense. On the other hand, it risked reducing US sympathy and support for Israel's Gaza campaign just when it is most needed.

People do stupid things and Olmert has done more than his share, but this one was plain unnecessary and foolish.

How did it get out?

by J Thomas on Fri, 01/16/2009 - 9:08pm

So, how much did this get reported in the US mass media?

It was in the NY Times, but my online version didn't say what page number. Maybe it was buried way inside where most people wouldn't notice it.

And it was repeated in Atlantic by Matt Yglesias.

I did a quick web search and found some other US media reporting. There was something in the African Path, in Minnesota. Watan, an arab newspaper in Anaheim. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, New York. Baltimore Jewish Times. Chicago Tribune. San Jose Mercury News. WHDH-TV MA. Minneapolis Star Tribune. LA Times. Mentioned briefly in article on Rice in Washington Post. Southern Ledger TN. Kansas City Star. FOXNews! Forbes. Seattle Times. Etc.

The US denial was reported by the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NBC29 News VA, KRIS-TV TX, KTVZ OR, WAOW WI, WDAM-TV MS, WTVM GA, etc, US Daily CA, Evening Sun PA, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Seattle Times, San Jose Mercury News, Forbes NY, Chicago Tribune, etc.

What happened? Here's my best guess:

Olmert was talking in hebrew to a group of voters in Ashkelon. He didn't think the story would get out, he just wanted to look good in front of an audience. But a french news team got the video and translated it and released it. The news spread faster than anybody could control; nobody expected it. It spread quickly in the USA. Then the US government denied it. They said they had always intended to abstain. The reports which quoted them tended to also quote Olmert, who after all was being denied, but often left out the british SC member who said he had been told the USA was going to vote in favor. Also the palestinian saying the same thing.

This new story got even more coverage, maybe because it came quick enough so it often got quoted instead of the original report. It got much wider TV coverage.

Analysis in american jewish media tended to agree that it was fine for Olmert to tell Bush what to do but he shouldn't say in public that he did it. Also there was grumbling that he was bragging over the US abstaining when he should have made the US veto it.

And there were reports that yes, Rice had intended to vote for it, but Cheney argued forcefully in favor of veto and the abstention was a last-minute compromise. This is a plausible alternative story. Cheney could even have invited Olmert to talk to Bush to help convince him; Olmert could have been involved without being central at all.

Does this say anything about the zionist lobby? The zionist lobby wouldn't want it to look to the US public like they were dictating terms to Bush. Why did they allow it to get so much attention? It came as a big surprise so they weren't ready. Then they needed an alternative story that would reduce the damage and it took time for that to come out.

Alternatively, they might have lost so much influence they could no longer keep such a story from spreading in the USA.

Clinton's Statement

by Ikester8 on Mon, 01/19/2009 - 12:35am

Clinton's statement is remarkable, for it illustrates exactly the power that Israel has had over the American government since its founding. Not even the destruction of the USS Liberty by Israeli jets had much of an impact. The real question is, why? Why does the US continue to allow the tail to wag the dog in this fashion? It's enough to turn one into a conspiracy theorist, if only to get some kind of an answer, since there are none forthcoming from our major media and pundits. Surely the pressure of the Lobby isn't all that's doing it.

JUSTICE HAD influenced SECRETARY OF STATE John Foster DULLES

by kalamando on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 4:06am

34th US President IKE suspended AID TO ISRAEL
“Ike” = Dwight David Eisenhower American general & the 34th President of the United States (1953-1961). As far as WAR & PEACE issues; IKE had the richest experience of all US presidents!
In WWII he was the commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (1943-1945) he launched the invasion of Normandy (June 6, 1944) and oversaw the final defeat of Germany (1945).
Ike cared about the STRATEGIC WELL BEING of Israel because HE was aware that the creation of Israel was the ultimate answer to European anti-Anti-Semitism.
On October 31, 1956 Ike’s presidency was marked by SUSPENSION OF US AID to ISRAEL in protest at its invasion of Egypt in the Suez Crisis.
In an emergency session of the United Nations (UN) November 1-2 1956 General Assembly was called to consider the Suez Crisis. U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE John Foster DULLES, ATTACKED the British–French–Israeli ACTION, and the Assembly votes for a cease-fire!
Britain & France complied promptly, but ISRAEL did not; until January 22, 1957 when Israeli forces completed their withdrawal. As a result "NO WAR" situation was enjoyed in the near east for ten years after that! Halelujeh