Is Israel too strong for Barack Obama?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Is Israel too strong for Barack Obama?

As America drops its demand for a total freeze on the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, angry Palestinians say there is no scope for resuming talks

FIVE months after Barack Obama went to Cairo and persuaded most of the Arab world, in a ringing declaration of even-handedness, that he would face down Israel in his quest for a Palestinian state, American policy seems to have run into the sand. The American president’s mediating hand is weaker, his charisma damagingly faded. From the Palestinian and Arab point of view, his administration—after grandly setting out to force the Jewish state to stop the building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land as an early token of good faith, intended to bring Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiation—has meekly capitulated to Israel.

The upshot is that hopes for an early resumption of talks between the main protagonists seem to have been dashed. Indeed, no one seems to know how they can be restarted. The mood among moderates on both sides is as glum as ever.

Mr Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, made matters worse by actually praising Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, for promising merely to “restrain” Israel’s building rather than stop it altogether, as he was first asked to do. Previously Mrs Clinton had insisted that stop meant stop. There should be no “organic growth” of existing settlements and no exceptions for projects under way. Nor did she specifically exempt East Jerusalem, which Palestinians view as their future capital but which many Israelis see as theirs alone. And she had earlier castigated Israel for demolishing Palestinian houses in the city’s eastern part. Now, in Israel on October 31st, she changed her tune, seeming to acquiesce in Mr Netanyahu’s refusal to meet those earlier American demands and congratulating the prime minister on his “unprecedented” offer to build at a slower rate than before.

Mr Netanyahu’s case is that being “prepared to adopt a policy of restraint on the existing settlements” is indeed a concession. No new settlements would be started, no extra Palestinian land appropriated for expansion. But some 3,000 housing units already commissioned must, he said, be completed. Building must go on in East Jerusalem, he has repeatedly said, as it cannot be part of a Palestinian state.

Mrs Clinton later awkwardly backpedalled, assuring the Palestinians that she still considered all settlements “illegitimate”, while pleading with them to resume talks. That seems unlikely. A storm of abuse raged in the Palestinian and Arab press. Mr Obama, it was widely deduced, had caved in after his own ratings in Israel had slumped, according to some Israeli polls, to as low as 4%. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Fatah party who presides over the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, expressed extreme disappointment—and continued to insist that talks could not resume until there was a full building freeze.

Among Palestinians at large, Mr Abbas has been derided for putting his faith in the new American administration. Hamas, the Islamist movement that runs the Gaza Strip, the smaller of the two main parts of a future Palestinian state, mocked him for ever thinking that Mr Obama could change American policy towards the Middle East.

Last month he called a general and presidential election for January 24th. But with opinion polls showing his popularity diving, on November 5th he said he would not stand for re-election. Hamas, in any event, said it would refuse to take part in the polls. Mr Abbas, it seems, has been forced to acknowledge that his authority—and his ability to grapple with the Israelis in negotiations if they had resumed—has been eviscerated.

Besides, even if talks did start again, no agreement would stick without the acquiescence of Hamas, which won the last Palestinian election, in 2006, and is still strong enough to kibosh any deal done without it. Yet discussions between the two rival groups, under the aegis of the Egyptians, have been stuttering along for more than a year without getting anywhere.

Mr Netanyahu, on the other hand, was #######-a-hoop. The right-wing and religious ministers who make up the bulk of his coalition government can scarcely believe his luck. The prime minister is riding high in the Israeli people’s esteem. Building work is proceeding apace in many of the settlements. He looks as if he has emerged unscathed from a brush with a hostile American president.

Mr Obama is being criticised, even by Israelis and Americans on the left, for making demands of Mr Netanyahu that he should have known would never be met. Some say the president should himself fly to Israel to address the Israeli people directly with a game-changing plan of his own. But no one, least of all in Washington, seems to know what that might be.

Source

Edited November 10, 2009 by Rob and Mel

[alienlovechild 75]

Mrs Clinton later awkwardly backpedalled, assuring the Palestinians that she still considered all settlements “illegitimate”, while pleading with them to resume talks. That seems unlikely. A storm of abuse raged in the Palestinian and Arab press. Mr Obama, it was widely deduced, had caved in after his own ratings in Israel had slumped, according to some Israeli polls, to as low as 4%. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Fatah party who presides over the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, expressed extreme disappointment—and continued to insist that talks could not resume until there was a full building freeze.

Among Palestinians at large, Mr Abbas has been derided for putting his faith in the new American administration. Hamas, the Islamist movement that runs the Gaza Strip, the smaller of the two main parts of a future Palestinian state, mocked him for ever thinking that Mr Obama could change American policy towards the Middle East.

Obama has brought the Israelis and Palestinians together- they both have little respect for Obama.

[mawilson 2,133]

At this point, even the Easter Bunny is too strong for Barack Obama. He would probably

apologise to a carrot for pulling it up to eat.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

At this point, even the Easter Bunny is too strong for Barack Obama. He would probably

apologise to a carrot for pulling it up to eat.

And then put the bunny in a sensitivity class.

[scandal 951]

The US-Israeli relationship remains as strong as ever. Where it really matters.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127046.html

Last update - 05:30 10/11/2009

Most advanced, expensive fighter jet headed to Israel

By Amos Harel

Tags: Israel Air Force

The largest defense deal in Israeli history, for the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter aircraft, is advancing, slowly but surely.

The rounds of talks among the defense establishment, the Pentagon and manufacturer Lockheed-Martin have significantly narrowed the gaps between the parties.

The United States is scheduled to respond next week to Israel's express request for 25 of the jets.

Jerusalem is to reach a final decision by early 2010, and there's a good chance a deal will be signed by the middle of the year.

Assuming Lockheed maintains its original production timetable the first fighters will be delivered in 2014.

Two years later, Israel will have its first operational squadron of F-35s, consisting of 25 fighter aircraft representing the cutting edge of U.S. technology (Israel's too, it is hoped), capable of any mission. Iran too?

Ready for Iran, if they stay still

Of course, assuming that Iran's nuclear installations are still waiting there by the time Israel has the appropriate aircraft.

Of course, this is one of the main questions surrounding the deal. When discussions began on the procurement of the F-35 it was clear that it was necessary if Israel was to have a response to the Iranian threat.

This is the main argument for buying the aircraft, especially in light of the fact that it now seems likely that Tehran will eventually the S-300 advanced air defense system from Russia, making stealth capability all the more important for Israeli fighters.

In the meantime, however, the timetables have diverged: Unless stopped, Iran's nuclear program may reach maturation within two years, but the delivery date for the F-35 is still far away. Some senior Israeli army officers are citing this in their call to delay the purchase.

They argue that it will use up most of the U.S. military aid to Israel without being on hand when needed.

They say urgent projects for the land forces should be advanced instead, and the remaining funds invested in the navy and in refurbishing older aircraft.

The Americans, in their discussions, raised two problems with this option: A delay would prevent Israeli defense industries from getting involved in the project at an early stage and earning money from the sale of systems incorporated into the F-35.

And if Israel delays its order then other countries will move up on the list for deliveries, and there will be no guarantee that it will receive delivery according to its timetable - even if that is in 2016. One concern is that by then other countries in the Middle East will also begin acquiring the aircraft.

Cutting the specialized Israeli suite

In the meantime, the Americans have eased their stance on Israel's request to include locally made electronics systems. A major issue in this would be the cost of the specialized "suite" Israel would like to develop for its order of F-35s.

This makes the aircraft more expensive, but much of the price also depends on the volume. For example, if the price of 25 aircraft, including many other components, comes to $130 million each, then an order of 75 may lower the per-unit price to $100 million.

The head of the Planning Directorate of the Israel Defense Forces, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, told Haaretz in September that in any event the cost of a single aircraft is expected to be much lower than $130 million, which he described as "exaggerated."

The decision on this acquisition is one of the most important for the budgets of both the state and the IDF, as well as the future shape of the military.

As in the past, it will be made by a limited group of people, with limited transparency, little control by civilians and without public debate.

The government has not really dealt with the issue and it is doubtful whether it will do so in the future.

These matters are usually agreed upon among the IDF chief of staff, the Israel Air Force commander, the defense minister and the director general of the defense ministry.

[SMR 368]

The US-Israeli relationship remains as strong as ever. Where it really matters.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127046.html

Last update - 05:30 10/11/2009

Most advanced, expensive fighter jet headed to Israel

By Amos Harel

Tags: Israel Air Force

The largest defense deal in Israeli history, for the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter aircraft, is advancing, slowly but surely.

The rounds of talks among the defense establishment, the Pentagon and manufacturer Lockheed-Martin have significantly narrowed the gaps between the parties.

The United States is scheduled to respond next week to Israel's express request for 25 of the jets.

Jerusalem is to reach a final decision by early 2010, and there's a good chance a deal will be signed by the middle of the year.

Assuming Lockheed maintains its original production timetable the first fighters will be delivered in 2014.

Two years later, Israel will have its first operational squadron of F-35s, consisting of 25 fighter aircraft representing the cutting edge of U.S. technology (Israel's too, it is hoped), capable of any mission. Iran too?

Ready for Iran, if they stay still

Of course, assuming that Iran's nuclear installations are still waiting there by the time Israel has the appropriate aircraft.

Of course, this is one of the main questions surrounding the deal. When discussions began on the procurement of the F-35 it was clear that it was necessary if Israel was to have a response to the Iranian threat.

This is the main argument for buying the aircraft, especially in light of the fact that it now seems likely that Tehran will eventually the S-300 advanced air defense system from Russia, making stealth capability all the more important for Israeli fighters.

In the meantime, however, the timetables have diverged: Unless stopped, Iran's nuclear program may reach maturation within two years, but the delivery date for the F-35 is still far away. Some senior Israeli army officers are citing this in their call to delay the purchase.

They argue that it will use up most of the U.S. military aid to Israel without being on hand when needed.

They say urgent projects for the land forces should be advanced instead, and the remaining funds invested in the navy and in refurbishing older aircraft.

The Americans, in their discussions, raised two problems with this option: A delay would prevent Israeli defense industries from getting involved in the project at an early stage and earning money from the sale of systems incorporated into the F-35.

And if Israel delays its order then other countries will move up on the list for deliveries, and there will be no guarantee that it will receive delivery according to its timetable - even if that is in 2016. One concern is that by then other countries in the Middle East will also begin acquiring the aircraft.

Cutting the specialized Israeli suite

In the meantime, the Americans have eased their stance on Israel's request to include locally made electronics systems. A major issue in this would be the cost of the specialized "suite" Israel would like to develop for its order of F-35s.

This makes the aircraft more expensive, but much of the price also depends on the volume. For example, if the price of 25 aircraft, including many other components, comes to $130 million each, then an order of 75 may lower the per-unit price to $100 million.

The head of the Planning Directorate of the Israel Defense Forces, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, told Haaretz in September that in any event the cost of a single aircraft is expected to be much lower than $130 million, which he described as "exaggerated."

The decision on this acquisition is one of the most important for the budgets of both the state and the IDF, as well as the future shape of the military.

As in the past, it will be made by a limited group of people, with limited transparency, little control by civilians and without public debate.

The government has not really dealt with the issue and it is doubtful whether it will do so in the future.

These matters are usually agreed upon among the IDF chief of staff, the Israel Air Force commander, the defense minister and the director general of the defense ministry.

This is exactly the point. Obama wanted to make the Israelis do what he told them to. Netanyahu said, "No, thank you." Obama said, "Okay." If Obama had changed tried to punish the Israelis for ignoring him by meaningfully changing the militaristic relationship, that would have been something but he hasn't got what it takes to do that. Obama has realized that sometimes talking gets you nowhere. But he doesn't have the spine to do anything else.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The US-Israeli relationship remains as strong as ever. Where it really matters.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127046.html

Last update - 05:30 10/11/2009

Most advanced, expensive fighter jet headed to Israel

By Amos Harel

Tags: Israel Air Force

The largest defense deal in Israeli history, for the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter aircraft, is advancing, slowly but surely.

The rounds of talks among the defense establishment, the Pentagon and manufacturer Lockheed-Martin have significantly narrowed the gaps between the parties.

The United States is scheduled to respond next week to Israel's express request for 25 of the jets.

Jerusalem is to reach a final decision by early 2010, and there's a good chance a deal will be signed by the middle of the year.

Assuming Lockheed maintains its original production timetable the first fighters will be delivered in 2014.

Two years later, Israel will have its first operational squadron of F-35s, consisting of 25 fighter aircraft representing the cutting edge of U.S. technology (Israel's too, it is hoped), capable of any mission. Iran too?

Ready for Iran, if they stay still

Of course, assuming that Iran's nuclear installations are still waiting there by the time Israel has the appropriate aircraft.

Of course, this is one of the main questions surrounding the deal. When discussions began on the procurement of the F-35 it was clear that it was necessary if Israel was to have a response to the Iranian threat.

This is the main argument for buying the aircraft, especially in light of the fact that it now seems likely that Tehran will eventually the S-300 advanced air defense system from Russia, making stealth capability all the more important for Israeli fighters.

In the meantime, however, the timetables have diverged: Unless stopped, Iran's nuclear program may reach maturation within two years, but the delivery date for the F-35 is still far away. Some senior Israeli army officers are citing this in their call to delay the purchase.

They argue that it will use up most of the U.S. military aid to Israel without being on hand when needed.

They say urgent projects for the land forces should be advanced instead, and the remaining funds invested in the navy and in refurbishing older aircraft.

The Americans, in their discussions, raised two problems with this option: A delay would prevent Israeli defense industries from getting involved in the project at an early stage and earning money from the sale of systems incorporated into the F-35.

And if Israel delays its order then other countries will move up on the list for deliveries, and there will be no guarantee that it will receive delivery according to its timetable - even if that is in 2016. One concern is that by then other countries in the Middle East will also begin acquiring the aircraft.

Cutting the specialized Israeli suite

In the meantime, the Americans have eased their stance on Israel's request to include locally made electronics systems. A major issue in this would be the cost of the specialized "suite" Israel would like to develop for its order of F-35s.

This makes the aircraft more expensive, but much of the price also depends on the volume. For example, if the price of 25 aircraft, including many other components, comes to $130 million each, then an order of 75 may lower the per-unit price to $100 million.

The head of the Planning Directorate of the Israel Defense Forces, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, told Haaretz in September that in any event the cost of a single aircraft is expected to be much lower than $130 million, which he described as "exaggerated."

The decision on this acquisition is one of the most important for the budgets of both the state and the IDF, as well as the future shape of the military.

As in the past, it will be made by a limited group of people, with limited transparency, little control by civilians and without public debate.

The government has not really dealt with the issue and it is doubtful whether it will do so in the future.

These matters are usually agreed upon among the IDF chief of staff, the Israel Air Force commander, the defense minister and the director general of the defense ministry.

This is exactly the point. Obama wanted to make the Israelis do what he told them to. Netanyahu said, "No, thank you." Obama said, "Okay." If Obama had changed tried to punish the Israelis for ignoring him by meaningfully changing the militaristic relationship, that would have been something but he hasn't got what it takes to do that. Obama has realized that sometimes talking gets you nowhere. But he doesn't have the spine to do anything else.

Two points...

1. The U.S. can't order another country to do what it wants. It can try, of course, but the foreign country can easily tell the U.S. to " screw off." It's about as reasonable as expecting the U.S. to change/do whatever a different country wants as well.

2. For intents and purposes, Israel is America's "eyes and ears" in the Middle East. There are relatively few Middle Eastern countries which tolerate the United States, let alone like them and have a peaceful agreement with them. As much as Obama might like to tell Israel what to do, the country is too important to the U.S. right now (and most likely the future) due to the overall situation in the Middle East.

Edited November 10, 2009 by DeadPoolX

[The_Dude 1,142]

The US-Israeli relationship remains as strong as ever. Where it really matters.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127046.html

Last update - 05:30 10/11/2009

Most advanced, expensive fighter jet headed to Israel

By Amos Harel

Tags: Israel Air Force

The largest defense deal in Israeli history, for the purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter aircraft, is advancing, slowly but surely.

The rounds of talks among the defense establishment, the Pentagon and manufacturer Lockheed-Martin have significantly narrowed the gaps between the parties.

The United States is scheduled to respond next week to Israel's express request for 25 of the jets.

Jerusalem is to reach a final decision by early 2010, and there's a good chance a deal will be signed by the middle of the year.

Assuming Lockheed maintains its original production timetable the first fighters will be delivered in 2014.

Two years later, Israel will have its first operational squadron of F-35s, consisting of 25 fighter aircraft representing the cutting edge of U.S. technology (Israel's too, it is hoped), capable of any mission. Iran too?

Ready for Iran, if they stay still

Of course, assuming that Iran's nuclear installations are still waiting there by the time Israel has the appropriate aircraft.

Of course, this is one of the main questions surrounding the deal. When discussions began on the procurement of the F-35 it was clear that it was necessary if Israel was to have a response to the Iranian threat.

This is the main argument for buying the aircraft, especially in light of the fact that it now seems likely that Tehran will eventually the S-300 advanced air defense system from Russia, making stealth capability all the more important for Israeli fighters.

In the meantime, however, the timetables have diverged: Unless stopped, Iran's nuclear program may reach maturation within two years, but the delivery date for the F-35 is still far away. Some senior Israeli army officers are citing this in their call to delay the purchase.

They argue that it will use up most of the U.S. military aid to Israel without being on hand when needed.

They say urgent projects for the land forces should be advanced instead, and the remaining funds invested in the navy and in refurbishing older aircraft.

The Americans, in their discussions, raised two problems with this option: A delay would prevent Israeli defense industries from getting involved in the project at an early stage and earning money from the sale of systems incorporated into the F-35.

And if Israel delays its order then other countries will move up on the list for deliveries, and there will be no guarantee that it will receive delivery according to its timetable - even if that is in 2016. One concern is that by then other countries in the Middle East will also begin acquiring the aircraft.

Cutting the specialized Israeli suite

In the meantime, the Americans have eased their stance on Israel's request to include locally made electronics systems. A major issue in this would be the cost of the specialized "suite" Israel would like to develop for its order of F-35s.

This makes the aircraft more expensive, but much of the price also depends on the volume. For example, if the price of 25 aircraft, including many other components, comes to $130 million each, then an order of 75 may lower the per-unit price to $100 million.

The head of the Planning Directorate of the Israel Defense Forces, Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel, told Haaretz in September that in any event the cost of a single aircraft is expected to be much lower than $130 million, which he described as "exaggerated."

The decision on this acquisition is one of the most important for the budgets of both the state and the IDF, as well as the future shape of the military.

As in the past, it will be made by a limited group of people, with limited transparency, little control by civilians and without public debate.

The government has not really dealt with the issue and it is doubtful whether it will do so in the future.

These matters are usually agreed upon among the IDF chief of staff, the Israel Air Force commander, the defense minister and the director general of the defense ministry.

So what really matters are subsidized defense contracts? What is the point in giving aid if they simply refuse to even listen. I really wish Obama had the balls to pull all military aid off the table for them. Hell, pull all foreign aid off the table and see what Netanyahu does. Alas, I fear that this is a domestic political decision rather than an international one.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Rob and Mel

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Can you imagine how it would look if Obama pulled all aid to Israel and didn't do the same to Egypt (which I believe gets more than Israel does)? It would play right in to the "Obama's a Mooslim" meme.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Can you imagine how it would look if Obama pulled all aid to Israel and didn't do the same to Egypt (which I believe gets more than Israel does)? It would play right in to the "Obama's a Mooslim" meme.

Yeah, but Egypt are more cooperative.... I think he looks more like an AIPAC puppet with his current course of action.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Can you imagine how it would look if Obama pulled all aid to Israel and didn't do the same to Egypt (which I believe gets more than Israel does)? It would play right in to the "Obama's a Mooslim" meme.

Yeah, but Egypt are more cooperative.... I think he looks more like an AIPAC puppet with his current course of action.

Like it or not, domestic political concerns can never be truly thrown out. It's just not on this issue that you see the impact of domestic pressure groups. No one really talks about this, but the American stance on Kashmir has 'evolved' quite a bit with the rapid increase in fundraising power of the Indian diaspora in the U.S. Every politician's first priority is being re-elected.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Can you imagine how it would look if Obama pulled all aid to Israel and didn't do the same to Egypt (which I believe gets more than Israel does)? It would play right in to the "Obama's a Mooslim" meme.

Yeah, but Egypt are more cooperative.... I think he looks more like an AIPAC puppet with his current course of action.

Like it or not, domestic political concerns can never be truly thrown out. It's just not on this issue that you see the impact of domestic pressure groups. No one really talks about this, but the American stance on Kashmir has 'evolved' quite a bit with the rapid increase in fundraising power of the Indian diaspora in the U.S. Every politician's first priority is being re-elected.

yes their first priority is to get re-elected, but when it comes at the expense of the nation, and the constituents that put them in office, I think it's a bit much. I don't agree with much that the Israeli government does, but I can't blame them for their efforts either. They have themselves and their citizens to consider after all. I just think that this has diverged from a mutually beneficial alliance. We need to either reestablish the parameters of this partnership, or break it. I'm not saying we need to be adversaries by any means. It's like getting pushed around by your little brother because he does your chores for you.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What chores of ours does Israel do? I can't think of a damn thing.

[The_Dude 1,142]

What chores of ours does Israel do? I can't think of a damn thing.

It wasn't a literal analogy