John Bolton On Obama's 'Anti-Israel Turn'

John Bolton writes about Team Obama's Anti-Israel Turn:

THE Obama administration is increasingly fixed on resolving the "Arab-Israeli dispute," seeing it as the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. This is bad news for Israel - and for America.

This of course is nothing new, focusing on the Israel-Arab (though these days isn't more just the Israel-Palestinian) Conflict. But the Obama Administration seems to be going after this with particular relish:

And now the Obama administration has made it US policy. This is evidenced by two key developments: the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as special envoy for the region, and Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's recent insistence on a "two-state solution" sooner rather than later.

Naming Mitchell as a high-level, single-issue envoy - rather than keeping the portfolio under Secretary Clinton's personal control - separates Israel from the broader conduct of US diplomacy. Mitchell's role underlines both the issue's priority in the president's eyes and the implicit idea it can be solved in the foreseeable future.

...Here, Clinton's strident insistence on a "two-state solution" during her recent Mideast trip becomes important. She essentially argued predestination: the "inevitability" of moving toward two states is "inescapable," and "there is no time to waste." The political consequence is clear: Since the outcome is inevitable and time is short, there is no excuse for not making "progress." Delay is evidence of obstructionism and failure - something President Obama can't tolerate, for the sake of his policies and his political reputation.

And of course, if you are going to show off your diplomatic prowess in the Middle East, there is only one way to go--take the short cut:

Almost invariably, Israel is the loser - because Israel is the party most dependent on the United States, most subject to US pressure and most susceptible to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western diplomats, media and the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When pressure must be applied to make compromises, it's always easier to pressure the more reasonable side.

One wonders why the US still goes to the trouble to put up the front of pushing diplomatic negotiations when they could just as easily phone it in--just tell the Israeli Prime Minister that you need to bolster Abbas (sigh, again) and what new concession Israel must provide in the interest of peace.

Of course there are murmurs of actually applying meaningful pressure on Hamas:

U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the Middle East subcommittee of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton demanding that $900 million in proposed Gaza aid for Palestinians be conditioned on ending rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza and having Hamas release kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

But no indication that the Obama Administration is interested in that idea--

If anything, one can predict coming pressure on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist groups, and to negotiate with them as equals (albeit perhaps under some artful camouflage). The pattern is so common that its reappearance in the Mitchell-led negotiations is what is really "inevitable" and "inescapable."

Bolton sees the explanation for Obama's approach as seeing Israel as more of a hindrance than as a help:

The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel's disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing Israel as a national-security asset, the administration likely sees a relationship complicating its broader policy of diplomatic "outreach."

No one will say so publicly, but this is the root cause of Obama's "Arab-Israeli issues first" approach to the region.

Read the whole thing.

From Obama's perspective of course, this makes sense. If the world is not at war with terrorism--who needs Israel.
If what is needed is a diplomatic, negotiating approach--Israel is much more useful put on the chopping block than as an ally.

Those who voted for Obama because of his proposed economic policies can afford to have buyers remorse--and go on with their lives.

Those who voted for Obama because they convinced themselves that Obama was a friend of Israel--can also go on with their lives.

But Israel does not have that luxury.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.