Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Israeli Propaganda

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
    Yeah yeah, keep talking to the mirror.
    Blade, let it go. We don't need this.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • #47
      Right, seems like a good time to drop this one in here.

      Found Begin's characterisation of hasbara as goebbelsism interesting.

      Benny do you agree that an hasbara army must be established immediately ?

      Israeli propaganda is both intelligent and necessary | Haaretz | Date ?

      Centralizing Israel's PR efforts enables the government to finally explain and defend its policies effectively.
      By David Admon

      Just as the some make conversation about the weather, here in Israel people talk about hasbara, efforts to explain and justify Israel's policies to the rest of the world. Operation Cast Lead, the Goldstone report, the delegation to Haiti and International Holocaust Remembrance Day have all been jumbled into the debate over Israel's PR efforts. It seem everyone has what to say about it, whether in the media, in the Knesset corridors or at gatherings of friends on a Friday evening. And everyone, so it seems, shares the sense that as always - we've failed at hasbara.

      Indeed, Israel's governments have always preferred to sweep the hasbara problem under the rug. Most of them were opposed to establishing an official and professional hasbara bureau.

      I recall that many years ago, when I served as director of the celebrations for Israel's 30th Independence Day, between the visit by Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and the Camp David summit, members of Peace Now were organizing stormy demonstrations.

      In response, then prime minister Menachem Begin called me in for a conversation (before the 1977 elections I served as Likud spokesman) and said: "We have to get the Likud hasbara headquarters going again."

      "Mr. prime minister, sir, get the central hasbara machine going again - it's in your hands," I said to him.

      "Heaven forbid. The government doesn't do hasbara - here we will not have Goebbelsism!" replied Begin, referring to the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, and said no more.

      I believe that this story explains the meaning of our traditional skittishness toward hasbara: the memory of the propaganda in dark regimes and a sense that it isn't clear where hasbara ends and propaganda begins. This reluctance is so acute that some people even refrained from marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day and complained about "the Holocaust survivor used for Israeli propaganda."

      Yet it is imperative to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day. This is not only in order to deal with Holocaust deniers but also to stress the state of Israel's importance for the continued existence of the Jewish people.

      I have also heard criticism of the Israeli delegations to Port-au-Prince and about how Israel made use of the Haitians' tragedy for "propaganda."

      What is the alternative? To remain indifferent? There is room for taking part and it is proper to cast light on the humanitarian activities of Israelis. For domestic consumption, too, this is useful: The glorification of the mission makes role models of the members of the delegations.

      What is hasbara? Hasbara is visiting the inhabitants of Sderot while Qassam rockets rain down on them; Hasbara is a Nobel Prize awarded to an Israeli woman; Hasbara is the celebratory Gay Pride parade in open Tel Aviv; Hasbara is also an interview with Jewish settlers evacuated from the Gaza Strip, some of whom still live under the shadow of the trauma and have not recovered.

      The confusion with respect to hasbara must be solved by centralizing it. It is necessary to establish a body with authority and money, backed by large budgets and headed by a cabinet minister. This ministry will establish professional committees specializing in various areas of hasbara. An inter-ministerial committee on hasbara should also be instated to coordinate with all the government ministries.

      But first of all, a research department should be established to try to learn from the failures of the past and examine why Israel's existence is not taken as a given in many places around the world, and why we are perceived as aliens who have just chosen to live in the Middle East.

      The "Hasbara Ministry" should also examine and update the tools that can be used. Here in fact, we can learn from terror organizations, which are intelligently using electronic media to spread their propaganda around the globe.

      Not long ago, when I was serving as Israel's ambassador to Hungary, I was invited to a discussion about Jerusalem on Hungarian television, along with the "ambassador of Palestine."

      I managed to surprise even him when I quoted from a Thomas Cook guidebook from 1900, indisputably a reliable source, to the effect that 100 years ago there were about 75,000 people living in the city, of whom about 40,000 were Jews and only 6,000 Muslims (mostly from Africa).

      Afterward, heads of the Jewish community complained to me that they weren't receiving similar hasbara materials from Israel. It is not surprising, then, that most people around the world believe that Jerusalem used to be the capital of an Arab Palestine and therefore it must once again become capital of that same country, which supposedly preceded the occupier Israel.

      The anti-Semitism report submitted to the government on the eve of International Holocaust Remembrance Day noted that in 2009 there were more anti-Semitic incidents than in any of the past 20 years. Israel is increasingly perceived abroad as "the bad guy."

      It is possible to hazard many possible reasons for why Israel is so hated and it is also possible to imagine the consequences of delving into this, but precisely for that reason I repeat that it is necessary to employ hasbara professionals.

      It is necessary to see that a "tool box" is provided to every Israeli ambassador and "flack" suited to the task with which he has been charged. Before I set out on my mission in Hungary I bought more than 100 copies of the book "The Case for Israel," written by American lawyer Alan Dershowitz. I gave it out there to people in the administration, academics and ambassadors. The well-reasoned, fact-based book gave them an opportunity to understand the Israeli side better and to admire the State of Israel.

      If we continue to tread water, take an apologetic stance, stammer and shoot from the hip, we shouldn't be surprised if a lot more Goldstone reports await us; if our leaders are unable to travel abroad without having the threat of arrest warrants hanging over their heads; and if in international institutions we are condemned and boycotted.

      In the long run the peace process will not benefit from this either. The obvious conclusion: An Israeli hasbara army must be established immediately.

      The author was Israel's ambassador to Hungary and chairman of the Israel Advertising Association.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
        Blade, let it go. We don't need this.
        Ok will do but will you tell S2 the same?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
          Ok will do but will you tell S2 the same?
          Worry about yourself first please. We'll take care of the rest. ;)
          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

          Comment


          • #50
            OK, the promised re-attack. over some homemade raviolis with meatballs in marinara sauce, chairforce style. :)

            I thought I was clear what factors explain a paradigm shift? Are they unrealistic? Can you argue with the results achieved since Israel attained military dominance? Can you suggest that military parity would be different the next time?

            Those, evidently, are hard-earned lessons. I see NOTHING, Astralis, suggesting the arabs and muslims have now functionally recognized Israel's right to exist in the absence of a massive defense budget assuring such.
            let's take a look at US strategic rationale for support to israel during the cold war.

            frankly, israeli "right to exist" was, at best, just a small part of this; the US did not do anything when israel fought for its new life in 1948. throughout the 50s, US aid was limited to minor amounts of economic aid.

            as late as 1967 US support for israel was minor, and only accelerated when it became clear that the arab states were supportive of the USSR-- and were unlikely to return to the US orbit.

            even in 1973, when US support for israel was apparent, there were very obvious "conditionals" attached. golda meir refused to launch a pre-emptive strike on the arabs precisely because she feared the US would cut off military aid, and her assessment was validated by kissinger's famous quote that israel would not have received so much as a nail if israel had done so.

            this was at a time when israel's very existence absolutely was imperiled-- when arab states were at least at economic/military parity with israel, and very likely would have extinguished the jewish state if their political/military leadership had been even somewhat more competent.

            in the cold war, then, support for israel was seen as part of the greater Cold War chess match. the US demonstrated quite clearly in 1956 and again in 1973 that she was fine with slapping down or even imperiling Israeli existence if it meant that the US's strategic interests in stability (ie, no USSR intervention) were advanced.

            now let's fast forward to today.

            israel now enjoys military overmatch, borne of decades of US policy mandating that israel enjoys a qualitative military edge. the arab states now do not enjoy hostile superpower support; indeed, many of their militaries now are in the US FMS orbit, which ties them more closely to the US.

            for the most part, the arab states are more unstable than they were in 1956/1967/1973; of the major arab players in the yom kippur war (egypt/syria/iraq/jordan), i'd say it is hard to argue that they are at parity with israel the way they were 40-50 years ago. israel's economy and military, on the other hand, have boomed. the israeli nuclear deterrent is almost certainly a hell of a lot stronger than they were back then. israel's DIME power is far stronger, both absolutely and relatively, than they were before.

            so absent the types of threats that israel faced 40 years ago, how does one explain ever-closer US support for israel?

            i agree with you that QME policy for israel -does- play an important role in stability in the region; hell, it's one of the arguments that the US uses for arms sales to taiwan, a place i will admit is personally nearer and dearer to me than israel.

            however, as an american i would absolutely blanch if 81 US congressmen went to taiwan, funded by a taiwanese lobbying group; if taiwanese lobbying groups got more than three-quarters of the US house of reps to publicly sign a letter asking the President to stop pressuring Taiwan on a relatively unimportant item, despite the COCOM warning that such obseqiousness was damaging US strategic interests in the area.

            so, to continue the debate in another light, what US strategic imperatives exist that make support for israel much more broad and unquestioning than support for taiwan? if it is all about preserving democracy against hostile states, why is not taiwan's support the same as israel's? or, alternatively, why is israel's support not the same as taiwan's?
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              why is not taiwan's support the same as israel's? or, alternatively, why is israel's support not the same as taiwan's?
              There are more jewish congressmen than those of taiwanese descent ?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                OK, the promised re-attack. over some homemade raviolis with meatballs in marinara sauce, chairforce style. :)



                let's take a look at US strategic rationale for support to israel during the cold war.

                frankly, israeli "right to exist" was, at best, just a small part of this; the US did not do anything when israel fought for its new life in 1948. throughout the 50s, US aid was limited to minor amounts of economic aid.

                as late as 1967 US support for israel was minor, and only accelerated when it became clear that the arab states were supportive of the USSR-- and were unlikely to return to the US orbit.

                even in 1973, when US support for israel was apparent, there were very obvious "conditionals" attached. golda meir refused to launch a pre-emptive strike on the arabs precisely because she feared the US would cut off military aid, and her assessment was validated by kissinger's famous quote that israel would not have received so much as a nail if israel had done so.

                this was at a time when israel's very existence absolutely was imperiled-- when arab states were at least at economic/military parity with israel, and very likely would have extinguished the jewish state if their political/military leadership had been even somewhat more competent.

                in the cold war, then, support for israel was seen as part of the greater Cold War chess match. the US demonstrated quite clearly in 1956 and again in 1973 that she was fine with slapping down or even imperiling Israeli existence if it meant that the US's strategic interests in stability (ie, no USSR intervention) were advanced.

                now let's fast forward to today.

                israel now enjoys military overmatch, borne of decades of US policy mandating that israel enjoys a qualitative military edge. the arab states now do not enjoy hostile superpower support; indeed, many of their militaries now are in the US FMS orbit, which ties them more closely to the US.

                for the most part, the arab states are more unstable than they were in 1956/1967/1973; of the major arab players in the yom kippur war (egypt/syria/iraq/jordan), i'd say it is hard to argue that they are at parity with israel the way they were 40-50 years ago. israel's economy and military, on the other hand, have boomed. the israeli nuclear deterrent is almost certainly a hell of a lot stronger than they were back then. israel's DIME power is far stronger, both absolutely and relatively, than they were before.

                so absent the types of threats that israel faced 40 years ago, how does one explain ever-closer US support for israel?

                i agree with you that QME policy for israel -does- play an important role in stability in the region; hell, it's one of the arguments that the US uses for arms sales to taiwan, a place i will admit is personally nearer and dearer to me than israel.

                however, as an american i would absolutely blanch if 81 US congressmen went to taiwan, funded by a taiwanese lobbying group; if taiwanese lobbying groups got more than three-quarters of the US house of reps to publicly sign a letter asking the President to stop pressuring Taiwan on a relatively unimportant item, despite the COCOM warning that such obseqiousness was damaging US strategic interests in the area.

                so, to continue the debate in another light, what US strategic imperatives exist that make support for israel much more broad and unquestioning than support for taiwan? if it is all about preserving democracy against hostile states, why is not taiwan's support the same as israel's? or, alternatively, why is israel's support not the same as taiwan's?
                I hope your pasta dinner did not come back to haunt you, as it does me at times.:)

                Anyway, that was a nice, lucid summary of US-Israeli relations 1948 to present.

                One of your points or questions is, what has changed that seems to put the US more in Israel's camp today than 30-60 years ago.

                It seems to me one reason is coincidental interests. For example, we've been thrown in the same boat with Israel on the Iranian question because we both have a vital stake in preventing Iran from acquiring nukes.

                Another example, is the Palestinian Peace Talks. Our interests there are driven not only by a concern for Israel, but by a desire to be accepted in ME as a force for peace and justice.

                There is no denying APAC and other Israeli lobby groups have had a measure of success in getting the US to commit more diplomatic and aid capital to Israel. In a way it seems not only a lobby success, but a sign of the times. With the ME in far more turmoil than 30-50 years ago, Israel offers a base for action should one be needed.

                I've neglected to draw the contrast you seek wrt Taiwan. I see Taiwan as a test of strength with China, albeit a quiet one for now. Taiwan has no Palestine on its border; no neighbors boiling with religious zeal to do her in. She has delicately managed her relationship with China, and China seems to have found the relationship useful for now.

                Why no super congressional delegations to Taiwan? Part of the reason is Taiwan probably doesn't want one. Why rile the dragon across the straits?

                why is not taiwan's support the same as israel's? or, alternatively, why is israel's support not the same as taiwan's?
                Which question do you want us to answer first, seeing as how they are same?
                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                Comment


                • #53
                  Astralis Reply

                  While my birthplace may have been a dubious candidate for a democratic toe-hold to the Asiatic mainland in the very late forties/early fifties, it nonetheless represented our most stable bulwark against the Mao menace at the time. I know so because Madame Chiang gave my mother an embroidered enamal tea saucer. That meant she was one of the good girls...or so I was told. Later I was told how the Taipai river ran red with the blood of the the locals when the Kuomintang arrived.

                  Israel? A speck of dust swirling amidst other equally insignificant specks of dust. They didn't fight wars. They pre-dated the knife fights of WEST SIDE STORY as THE JETS. Guess who were (literally) THE SHARKS?

                  You can say the Cold War changed matters. I'd suggest a process evolved coalescing alliances. The U.S.-Israeli alliance was validated twice over in 1973 and 1989. Each instance provided an opportunity for one to see the complete worth of the other.

                  One other event occurred that crystallized the relationship, although obliquely. The '73 oil boycott inaugurated the age of oil politics and energy security. The middle east gained value that Taiwan could only dream. The key to American access lay, oddly, through Israel. Not only a victor but a democratic victor in a sea of authoritarian oligarchies and juntas by various ilks. None, btw, remotely close to parity after 1973 but all envious and eager for a taste of winning.

                  How is it that America's relationships with the leaders of KSA and Egypt grew despite being the architect of their misery and frustration? One only had to look at America's ability to transform the puny jews into Supermen. Afterall, it couldn't have been the doing of those sons of Isaac.

                  Dominance works maintaining a neighborhood to our relative disposition. Doing so means access for all our other friends to their newly-valued energy. Enriching them enriches us tenfold. And while the mathematics says that, surely there must come a time when the downtrodden arab/muslim masses will toss off the yokes of oppression held in place by their satraps, history and human nature has thus far suggested otherwise.

                  I see no American leadership led by the nose. While I love Jewish recipe chicken dishes, I'd personally take Taipai every day (and night) but, beyond the food, tailors and other delights, the more tangible reasons for our heavily-skewed leanings elsewhere hold the high ground.

                  I have the privilege of being one-time paperboy for the future former foreign minister of Taiwan, Dr. Hung-Mao Tien. And, later, his student. All long, long after and no relation to my birthplace in Taipai.

                  "...&#@*%! goddamned Nixon..."

                  That's all I could understand for the first two weeks of class in the fall of 1973. I laugh to this day.
                  Last edited by S2; 20 Mar 12,, 07:17.
                  "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                  "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    JAD,

                    One of your points or questions is, what has changed that seems to put the US more in Israel's camp today than 30-60 years ago.

                    It seems to me one reason is coincidental interests. For example, we've been thrown in the same boat with Israel on the Iranian question because we both have a vital stake in preventing Iran from acquiring nukes.

                    Another example, is the Palestinian Peace Talks. Our interests there are driven not only by a concern for Israel, but by a desire to be accepted in ME as a force for peace and justice.
                    true, we have coincidental interests. but even there, our interests do not fully match. i submit that a closer alliance with israel does little to further our overall strategic interests.

                    let's take iran as an example. yes, we both see a nuclear iran as a serious threat. but israel (understandably) views a nuclear iran as an existential threat, while the US does not (merely "very serious").

                    this creates different strategic necessities. the US has the "luxury" of needing to worry about second-order effects-- oil prices, terrorist strikes against american interests, unrest in iraq/afghanistan, a populace unified under the mullahs.

                    israel does not. these second-order considerations fall into relative insignificance compared to the threat of an iranian nuke taking out a significant portion of the israeli populace.

                    so what does a closer alliance get us? it gives us, perhaps, greater tactical intelligence sharing, and better tactical coordination on strikes if/when they do occur.

                    moreover, the closer alliance now means that if israel does decide to disregard the US, the US will almost certainly be drawn into the conflict-- whether it wants to or not. US strategic flexibility disappears.

                    for that matter, US strategic flexibility has already been reduced: obama recently announced, with netanyahu at his side, that he does not believe in deterrence against iran-- and used a fairly weak explanation that this would lead to the immediate nuclearization of the greater ME. for some reason i do not think that it was strictly the foreign policy interests of the United States that drove this particular decision.

                    so we clearly have a relationship which israel gets far more out of the US than we do out of her. we get tactical benefits for strategic inflexibility/vulnerability. not a good trade-off, and i question why our policymakers have decided to make this choice.

                    Which question do you want us to answer first, seeing as how they are same
                    not quite! in my ideal world, i would want israel to be treated like the way we treat taiwan now. despite taiwan being my birthplace, i have no interest in seeing an imbalanced relationship between taiwan and the US that is, shall we say, vulnerable to manipulation.
                    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      S2,

                      I know so because Madame Chiang gave my mother an embroidered enamal tea saucer. That meant she was one of the good girls...or so I was told.
                      quite the heirloom indeed, and from madame chiang herself!

                      from what i understand from my parents, if US delegations (of any rank) came to taiwan back in the 60s-70s, they would almost invariably get the VVIP treatment: limos, security escorts, ceremonial guards, dinners, the whole nine-yards.

                      they certainly know whom buttered their bread, so to speak. that's true (although not nearly to the earlier extent!) today-- in my current position i can personally see the difference between how taiwan and israeli delegations act. even though it goes against my grain to use anecdotal evidence, it just underlined to me how the respective country/renegade province views the power dynamic. i've heard similar anecdotes from State, as well.

                      I see no American leadership led by the nose.
                      i do not think it has gone that far, either. i'm no crank; i don't think american foreign policy is being run by some jewish cabal. at the same time, i think we put an undue weight on supporting israel, which also opens the US to alliance manipulation. i am even more uneasy at the way politicians have pandered to a specific domestic audience with attacks on foreign policy.

                      i'd be far more comfortable with a relationship that was far more akin to the one we have with taiwan. sure, we will continue to guarantee QME to israel. but israel should pay for her defense-- no more defense assistance, for starters.

                      if israel wants the aid spigot to continue, then they need to follow US rules; no more veiled-threats of 1956-like adventures. if kissinger could tell off golda meier back in the 70s, no way obama should be bending to netanyahu today (which Obama did, worse luck).

                      "...&#@*%! goddamned Nixon..."
                      were you there when carter switched recognition? man, there was some serious carter hate going on then.
                      Last edited by astralis; 20 Mar 12,, 18:24.
                      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Astralis Reply

                        "...i think we put an undue weight on supporting israel, which also opens the US to alliance manipulation..."

                        We've seen too clearly the near-fatal consequences of not nearly enough weight. Golda Meier's decision to forego a spoiling attack prior to the initiation of hostilities was, in retrospect, one of immense courage. While Israel faced nat'l annihilation Kissinger was more worried about appearances. While he may have had a point and the ability to enforce his perspective history shows almost nobody outside historians or Israelis remembering Israel turning the other cheek.

                        For that ill-remembered and poorly-honored fact she risked her nation's survival.

                        Who, therefore and under the most starkly austere circumstance, faced "...alliance manipulation..."?

                        "...were you there when carter switched recognition? man, there was some serious carter hate going on then..."

                        No. I was 14 years old (about 1969-70) when I met Dr. Tien and his family in Delafield, Wisconsin. He was then a young doctorate grad from UW-Madison and just beginning his academic career. I was an 18 year old freshman when I took my first poli sci classes from him in the fall of 1973. He was an amazing man. His disdain for Nixon, though, reached well beyond table-tennis diplomacy, which he viewed as a master-stroke.

                        Remember the old Vulcan proverb- "Only Nixon can go to China..." So unbelievably true.
                        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by astralis View Post
                          JAD,

                          true, we have coincidental interests. but even there, our interests do not fully match. i submit that a closer alliance with israel does little to further our overall strategic interests.

                          let's take iran as an example. yes, we both see a nuclear iran as a serious threat. but israel (understandably) views a nuclear iran as an existential threat, while the US does not (merely "very serious").

                          this creates different strategic necessities. the US has the "luxury" of needing to worry about second-order effects-- oil prices, terrorist strikes against american interests, unrest in iraq/afghanistan, a populace unified under the mullahs.

                          israel does not. these second-order considerations fall into relative insignificance compared to the threat of an iranian nuke taking out a significant portion of the israeli populace.

                          so what does a closer alliance get us? it gives us, perhaps, greater tactical intelligence sharing, and better tactical coordination on strikes if/when they do occur.

                          moreover, the closer alliance now means that if israel does decide to disregard the US, the US will almost certainly be drawn into the conflict-- whether it wants to or not. US strategic flexibility disappears.

                          for that matter, US strategic flexibility has already been reduced: obama recently announced, with netanyahu at his side, that he does not believe in deterrence against iran-- and used a fairly weak explanation that this would lead to the immediate nuclearization of the greater ME. for some reason i do not think that it was strictly the foreign policy interests of the United States that drove this particular decision.

                          so we clearly have a relationship which israel gets far more out of the US than we do out of her. we get tactical benefits for strategic inflexibility/vulnerability. not a good trade-off, and i question why our policymakers have decided to make this choice.



                          not quite! in my ideal world, i would want israel to be treated like the way we treat taiwan now. despite taiwan being my birthplace, i have no interest in seeing an imbalanced relationship between taiwan and the US that is, shall we say, vulnerable to manipulation.
                          Asty:

                          Good points. A couple echo what I said.

                          What's your read on Obama's meeting with Netanyahu? Did he box himself in? I have the uneasy feeling that Natanyahu holds the trip wire to bringing us in whenever Israel decides to attack.
                          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by astralis View Post
                            so what does a closer alliance get us? it gives us, perhaps, greater tactical intelligence sharing, and better tactical coordination on strikes if/when they do occur.

                            moreover, the closer alliance now means that if israel does decide to disregard the US, the US will almost certainly be drawn into the conflict-- whether it wants to or not. US strategic flexibility disappears.

                            for that matter, US strategic flexibility has already been reduced: obama recently announced, with netanyahu at his side, that he does not believe in deterrence against iran-- and used a fairly weak explanation that this would lead to the immediate nuclearization of the greater ME. for some reason i do not think that it was strictly the foreign policy interests of the United States that drove this particular decision.
                            The bolded bit makes it sound like a recent development but i think its been the case since the first oil crisis in Oct '73.

                            US strategic fleixbility wrt to Israel has been a myth ever since.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Mar 12,, 12:41.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              JAD,

                              What's your read on Obama's meeting with Netanyahu? Did he box himself in? I have the uneasy feeling that Natanyahu holds the trip wire to bringing us in whenever Israel decides to attack.
                              yes, i believe obama boxed himself in; a stronger leader would have not been so pressured to openly describe US strategy. even if deterrence really was no longer a US option, it was not wise to actually say it out loud.

                              israel absolutely has the whip hand here. there are several things the US can do to improve its tactical position, and i suspect we are doing them-- otherwise my guess is that netanyahu would have tried striking iran by now.
                              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                JAD,

                                yes, i believe obama boxed himself in; a stronger leader would have not been so pressured to openly describe US strategy. even if deterrence really was no longer a US option, it was not wise to actually say it out loud.
                                Asty:

                                It's obvious Obama traded tactical independence for time, which may yet yield fruit. That's leads to a follow-on question: could Obama have gotten what he wanted some other way? Is there a dearth of imaginative foreign policy advisers round him? IMO Hillary Clinton has been an adequate SecState, but lacks foreign policy acumen.

                                israel absolutely has the whip hand here. there are several things the US can do to improve its tactical position, and i suspect we are doing them-- otherwise my guess is that netanyahu would have tried striking iran by now.
                                Such as?
                                To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X