Israel cautions against Obama dialogue with Iran

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Israel cautions against Obama dialogue with Iran
Thu Nov 6, 2008 7:25am EST

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel said Thursday U.S.
President-elect Barack Obama's stated readiness to talk
to Iran could be seen in the Middle East as a sign of
weakness in efforts to persuade Tehran to curb its
nuclear program.

"We live in a neighborhood in which sometimes dialogue
-- in a situation where you have brought sanctions, and
you then shift to dialogue -- is liable to be interpreted
as weakness," Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said, asked
on Israel Radio about policy change toward Tehran in an
Obama administration.

Her remarks sounded the first note of dissonance with
Obama by a senior member of the Israeli government since
the Democrat's sweeping victory over Republican candidate
John McCain in the U.S. presidential election Tuesday.

Asked if she supported any U.S. dialogue with Iran, Livni
replied: "The answer is no."

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4A52J920081106

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

1. Screw what Israel wants us to do

We don't work for the the Israelis, despite what they may think.

Make AIPAC register as agents of a foreign government while you're at it, Obama.

[rateyes]

2. I'm with you on that.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Nobody has ever thought that you do work for the Israelis!

Any country has a right to say what they would LIKE America to do - and America has a right to ignore them.

You know what? I was coming on this thread to express my strong disagreement with Livni, and to comment that she is obviously playing to the Israeli right in order to defeat Netanyahu in the election, and hoping that when/if she does, she gets a bit more reasonable in her expressed attitudes and starts working more for peace. But all these expressions of xenophobia and accusations of Israel somehow ruling, or trying to rule, America are absolutely disgusting me! Once and for all: Israel DOES not, CANNOT, and isn't even TRYING to rule a country many times its size and with infinitely more power! It might be reasonable to express concerns about whether Israel will CO-OPERATE sufficiently in American-sponsored peace negotiations; but not that it can somehow stop them on its own.

And AIPAC are an American organization, and Livni has nothing to do with them. They do have far too many links with the American Right however! Maybe that will change as the American Right becomes less powerful.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

9. My Armenian girlfriend told me 30 years ago that the US does what Israel tells it to do

She was living in Lebanon until the PLO made that country unlivable.

I didn't like what she had to say then, but when it comes to Middle East policy, AIPAC has way too much influence. Politicians on the left and right are both petrified at the though of offending them.

[d_b]

3. Fuck them

.

[Th1onein]

4. Fuck Israel

I'm tired of dancing to their fucking tune. It's time for peace in the Middle East.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Fuck all demonization and scapegoating of ANY nation!

That includes Iran AND Israel.

[Th1onein]

11. Nobody is demonizing or scapegoating Israel.

I'm surely not. But their warmongering has got to stop. Should I say, instead, that the Israeli's government's warmongering has got to stop? Is that more palatable for you?

[LeftishBrit]

12. Yes,it is much more palatable thanks

Rather like the difference between me (as a non-American) saying "The American government's warmongering has got to stop", which I have often said, versus my saying "Fuck America" - which I would never say!

[Frank Cannon]

5. Here's an idea: How about the US does what's in its own best interest...

instead of Israel's for a change?

[Hope And Change]

6. Yes, but say that to the Israel lobby.They will do everything to fuck up Obama in the next election.

[oberliner]

10. Some very paranoid responses to this thread

Lots of countries weigh in on what they hope the US will or will not do.

The US ignores those countries all the time - Israel frequently among them.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

13. When Israel weighs in they most often do it via AIPAC...

...and AIPAC is never ignored by the U.S. Congress. They are in fact the most feared lobby in Washington.

[oberliner]

14. I respectfully disagree with you on all counts

Firstly, AIPAC is made up entirely of American citizens. The views that they promote do not represent the position of the Israeli government by any means. In fact there has often been a fair amount of tension between the Israeli government and the American leadership of AIPAC. You may recall that Olmert addressed AIPAC not too long ago and received a rather tepid response to put it mildly.

To your second point, AIPAC is quite often ignored by the US Congress. The leadership of AIPAC recently lobbied for passage of a House Resolution that suggested a naval blockade of Iran. The House Democratic leadership opted to rebuff AIPAC and not bring that resolution to a vote. That is just one example of a position supported and lobbied for by AIPAC that has been rejected or ignored by Congress.

There are a host of powerful lobbyists representing a variety of interests from the insurance industry to the defense industry to the pharmaceutical industry that are considerably more powerful and feared in Washington, in my opinion.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. What has AIPAC ever pushed for that...

...Israeli leadership opposed or didn't want?

To say AIPAC is often ignored by Congress is simply not believable. Of course, they will always ask for more than they expect to get, every lobby does that, but just because they may not be successful in getting everything they ask for doesn't argue for their often being ignored. AIPAC is NEVER ignored by Congress.

It is certainly true that there are other powerful lobbying groups in Washington -- they, and other special interests, collectively represent a huge problem for our country in my opinion. They are poison to our so called representative democracy.

[oberliner]

19. You claimed that Israel "weighs in" via AIPAC

That implies that Israel communicates a message to AIPAC and then AIPAC relays that message on to the leaders of the US. This is what I would dispute. Israel does not instruct AIPAC as to what positions it will take. The views of AIPAC are the views of its membership, all of whom are American.

The leadership of AIPAC has often taken a less flexible position regarding, for example, the parameters of a future Palestinian state or the status of the settlements than has the Israeli government. Of course, much of the time, the views of AIPAC correspond with the views of the particular Israeli government in power, but that by no means suggests that Israel "weighs in" via AIPAC, merely that the two often (but not always) have similar perspectives.

As to your second point, I will concede that I may have have overstated the reality. Would you concede likewise? Would it be fair to say that they are neither "often" nor "never" ignored - but rather somewhere between those two extremes? If you will not concede that point, would you concede they are often rebuffed, rather than ignored?

With your last point I can certainly concur. The structure of the lobbying system in this country is severely flawed. My argument, however, is that AIPAC is no more or less problematic than any of the other influential lobby groups in America.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

20. Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree...

...I think AIPAC is clearly the U.S. political arm of Israeli leadership and that they wield tremendous influence over our foreign policy.

As to the question of fearing AIPAC, can you tell me how many U.S. Congressman stood up to condemn the unconscionable bombing of Lebanon in 2006? This was an all out military assault which included dropping thousands of cluster bombs on civilian communities in the final days -- btw Israel have still not provided maps to the Lebanese of the drop areas or assisted with the clean up in any way. This was a major war crime and not one member of Congress stood up to condemn it -- and there's a reason for that. FEAR.

Ralph Nader was willing to speak the truth of this assault that no U.S. Congress member would:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqSiPbHSfws

Here Ray McGovern offers some insight on AIPAC's influence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7P3-4LqlM8

As to AIPAC being ignored or rebuffed, I think it's more accurate to say that they, like every lobby, don't get everything they ask for because they always press for much more than they actually expect to get.

[oberliner]

21. Where we disagree

You claim that the reason why members of Congress did not condemn Israel for its actions in the war with Lebanon is "fear".

I claim that the reason was that most members of Congress supported the action that Israel took against Lebanon.

Many innocent civilians were killed by US forces in the initial stages of the bombing of Afghanistan.

How many members of Congress stood up and condemned those actions?

I would argue that most members of Congress supported the US campaign in Afghanistan and most members of Congress supported Israel's war against Lebanon.

I do not believe that there were large numbers of Congresspeople who wanted to condemn Israel for its bombing of Lebanon but did not do so out of fear of AIPAC.

I think that Ray McGovern, Ralph Nader, and others overstate the significance of the influence of Israel and/or AIPAC in American politics.

I would note that there were 35 co-sponsors to a House resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, led by Dennis Kucinich. Certainly this resolution was not something that AIPAC would have encouraged.

Rep. Kucinich is someone who has frequently taken positions that are odds with those of AIPAC. I have not observed his having any difficulties in repeatedly getting re-elected for Congress as a result.

I would respectively suggest that the vast majority of members of Congress do not share your perception of the situation in the Middle East and therefore take positions that seem inexplicable to you (and others who share your view) absent some sort of outside pressure.

[azurnoir]

23. But you leave out that

during the time Lebanon was bombed Congress was under Republican control, and we were going into election season. So your contention that the killing of nearly 1200 Lebanese civilians had a Congressional seal of approval is true but you do not mention why, it did have a WH seal of approval also and seeing how the Presidents party controlled the entire government at the time and it was thought that killing Arabs was a good thing, it worked well for them in 2004 but things change in large part due to Iraq.

[LeftishBrit]

15. One point that I think is being missed here

Livni is currently involved in the beginnings of an election campaign, which is likely to be close, against (mainly) Netanyahu's Likud. Livni has a reasonable chance of winning, but the Likud will constantly portray her as weak and soft on defence. Therefore, I think this remark was really intended for the undecided Israeli voters ('don't believe Netanyahu when he accuses me of being about to surrender to Iran!') rather than an attempt to influence America.

No doubt it would be better if politicians did not use discussions with other countries as props in their own election campaigns; but it happens constantly everywhere!

[bemildred]

17. It's hard to see it as a realistic attempt to influence US politics,

so yeah it's likely for domestic use.

I get so annoyed at this sort of rhetoric that equates anything less than mindless belligerence with "weakness", as though not thinking things through was virtuous.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Actually, the big point being missed here and in LBN...

...Livni was asked a question in an interview! This was not a press release from her office to the new president-elect. This was a radio interview in which her opinion was sought about the recent change to one of the most powerful country's leadership. But, as usual, we get the paranoid rantings of the "AIPAC/Israel control the US" crowd and the chorus of "FUCK ISRAEL" without any real discussion or even reading of the article and comprehending the situation on the ground. There are some that have the same reaction to "Israel" as right-wingers have to "Iran."

[LeftishBrit]

22. Good point there