Salon - Glenn Greenwald: Obama's "interference" in Israeli politics

[Turborama]

WEDNESDAY JUNE 3, 2009 05:04 EDT

Both Likud Party members in Israel as well as their Americans supporters – including members of both parties in the U.S. Congress – are beginning to complain that the Obama administration is unduly "interfering" in Israeli politics by insisting on a full cessation of settlement growth. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1243872317025&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">The Jerusalem Post today reports: "US President Barack Obama's administration's criticism of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's policies has crossed the line into interfering in Israeli politics, top Likud ministers and MKs said Tuesday." Yesterday, Politico's Ben Smith similarly documented that "the administration’s escalating pressure on Israel to freeze all growth of its settlements on Palestinian land has begun to stir concern among Israel’s numerous allies in both parties on Capitol Hill." Smith quotes several Israel-protective Democrats warning that Obama is either close to broaching -- or has already broached -- what one of them, Rep. Anthony Weiner, calls the "line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies." Other than a handful of Democrats on civil liberties issues, there has been almost no public criticism of Obama from Congressional Democrats; all it took was some light pressure exerted on Israel for that to happen.

There are several points highlighted by these growing complaints about Obama's actions:

(1) This first point applies equally to those complaining that the Obama administration is unduly "interfering" in private companies seeking government bailouts as it does to those complaining of Obama’s "interference" with Israeli settlement policies. A country, a company or an individual has every right to remain free of "interference" from others as long as they remain independent of the party seeking to "interfere." But if one chooses instead to become dependent on someone else or seeks help and aid from them, then complying with the demands of those providing the aid is an inevitable price that must be paid – and justifiably so.

This is a basic lesson which most people learn in adolescence or young adulthood. Teenagers who tell their parents that they are not compelled to comply with parental dictates are typically met with the response that this is so only if they want nothing from their parents, but as long as they seek financial support, then the parents have the right to demand certain actions in return.

=snip=

Identically, if Israel wants to be free of what it and some of its U.S. supporters call "interference" from the Obama administration, that’s very easy to achieve: Israel can stop asking for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070318.html">tens of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money, huge amounts of http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/12/israel-absorbs-bombs.html">military and weapons supplies for its various wars, and http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/16/world/us-vetoes-un-resolution-critical-of-israel.html">unyielding American diplomatic protection at the U.N. But as long as Israel remains dependent on the U.S. in countless ways, then Obama not only has the right -- but he has the obligation -- to demand that Israel cease activities which harm U.S. interests.

=Snip=

Well worth reading the whole thing: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/03/israel/index.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. Yep. Brazillions of dollars buys you a partner - not a silent partner.

[DJ13]

2. If they dont want interference, dont take billions from us every year

Its like dealing with a rebellious teenager who wants daddy to pay for his lifestyle, but bitches if dad tries to tell him something.

[aquart]

3. Oh, Bush's laissez faire did them no good at all.

And only the Likud would think otherwise.

[ihavenobias]

4. Thanks for posting.

I can't read this now, but I will later.