Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

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

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

TACH

3:29 AM ET

January 14, 2009

American politicians are not

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

 

DANI K. NEDAL

8:00 PM ET

January 14, 2009

Revealing and confusing

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?

 

DANI K. NEDAL

7:28 PM ET

January 16, 2009

Bragging about this to get

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.

 

IKESTER8

5:35 AM ET

January 19, 2009

Clinton's Statement

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.

 

KALAMANDO

9:06 AM ET

January 22, 2009

JUSTICE HAD influenced SECRETARY OF STATE John Foster DULLES

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

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More