No-drama-Obama's 'rage' against Israel

A piece which is essentially an opinion based upon a piece of speculation...

...which I have just commented on.

hmmmm....

Not Ahmadinejad, not Kim Jong Il, etc, because they are loons who say one thing and try to do it. Bibi tried to throw sand in the eyes of the administration and bluffed about the "freeze" in building. He wants to provoke bloodshed because that is the only way he can avoid substantive peace talks and keep the Israeli population on his side. He doesn't want peace or peace process, because then hard decisions will have to be made.
Also, Obama isn't stupid. He knows Bibi is trying to get the Evangelists and far right Jews to topple him.
Well, according to the Rasmussen Institute poll, the times they are a-changing and fewer Americans regard Israel as an ally than ever before and that number is decreasing.
Add to that the fact that fewer and fewer US Jews are turned on by Israel any more and Bibi's far right-fundamentalist coalition is in deep doo-doo.

http://cifwatch.com/2010/03/18/when-it-comes-to-israel/#more-6214

There is no evidence for the 'rage' theory.

Obama and Clinton are using Israel to paper over the failures of their foreign policy elsewhere, eg Iran, and to try to generate support for the healthcare issue.

This will backfire on them in the midterms and will only increase support for the current Israeli government.

Fewer and fewer US Jews are turned on by Israel any more -- pretty much like here -- and Bibi's far right-fundamentalist coalition is in deep doo-doo.

Miriam.

"It's bad enough that the administration should take a cool and calculated decision to try and force Mr Netanyahu from office - blatantly interfering in the Israeli nation's democratic right to choose its own representatives"

But you haven't seemed too worried when America do this to other countries - interfering or invading them with their desire of regime change? (do you think Israel is going to be above this, somehow immune)?

'when you jump into bed with a gorilla, you don't stop making love when you wish to, you do so when the gorilla say's it's time to turn over and take a nap'....
If that metaphor is lost on you, then I'm sure the similar one of jumping into bed with an elephant isn't...

Phwoar, John, another one resorting to oo..err..missus imagery. What is this, the Chelsea dressing room?

Not a particularly nice image (of Isreal & America) in bed together, I'm afraid... :-)

Maaaaaaaytrrrrron

Miriam.

"It's bad enough that the administration should take a cool and calculated decision to try and force Mr Netanyahu from office - blatantly interfering in the Israeli nation's democratic right to choose its own representatives"

But you haven't seemed too worried when America do this to other countries - interfering or invading them with their desire of regime change? (do you think Israel is going to be above this, somehow immune)?

== Iraq is not a democracy - its population's will was violently suppressed, their regime did not express 'their desire'. Israel is a vibrant democracy where the population decides its own fate.

If forcing Bibi from office is Obama's plan then it will almost certainly backfire. Last I heard Bibi enjoys a 71% approval rating in Israel at the moment, and the Jerusalem issue is a unifying one.

There may also be a personal issue between Bibi and Obama, but that's pure speculation and a good example why diplomacy should not be about personalities but about common interests.

My hope (it is becoming more distant as time goes by) is that our politicians secretly know what they're doing. The big picture here is Iran, and I cannot believe that Obama has lost sight of that, in which case there's a possibility that this is all posturing and harsh rhetoric is part of a grander political scheme.

Has anyone considered that this is all designed to strengthen Bibi's government domestically to prepare for tough times ahead? Or is that delusional and wishful thinking?

To Miriam's point above, I think the Iraq invasion was about maintaining America's role as the world's strongman. It was a message to banana republics and despots around the world that if you mess with the US or allies this is what will happen to you. It created a lot of resentment, but it also created a lot of grudging respect and a lot of cooperation. America is not the world's only superpower because of divine right but because they have always had the means and will to back up their position with violence if necessary.

If the US government ever considered military action against Israel I think it would result in civil war.

Miriam, I think John may have been referring to countries like Columbia, Chile, Nicaragua, South Korea, which were all vibrant democracies and which the CIA subverted in one way or another. Then there's Mossadegh's Iran, also subverted by the Americans.

Yes Moshe, I was referring to these (& I'm sure there are countless other examples too)...

If you really want to go even further back to see the contradiction of what Miriam is saying look at the founding of America itself - oh but I forgot, it was being brutally governed by a fascist mohawk that the inhabitants needed liberation from.....

Miriam. The word liberation is no more than colonial jargon for the native savages that we will educate (after stealing their assets), it all equals to the same - interference in a land that is not theirs..

Hold on, John Gold - I haven't defended, anywhere, American interference in other democracies. I defended the American invasion of Iraq. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Well the main point of my argument is - why are you surprised that America do/ will aim to manipulate Israels will or sovereignty? Look at their history - does a leopard change it's spots?
If Israel seek a relationship with the states, they have to accept the ugly truth that they're in bed with an elephant...
Reminds me of celebrities that court publicity and gain their livelihood from such, then complain when they lack personal privacy, it's all part of the same wonderful package....