Israel asks Bush to explain its 'special relationship' with U.S. to Obama

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israel is asking U.S. President George W. Bush to describe to his successor, Barack Obama, the American commitment to ensure that its strategic deterrence is not compromised. The subject was the focus of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's farewell meeting in the White House on Monday with Bush and top administration officials.

"I discussed with the president and his most senior staff issues connected to the core of the special relationship between Israel and the U.S., strategic matters of the utmost importance, and the ability to preserve those ties in the coming years," Olmert told reporters Tuesday.

Top administration officials told Olmert there was no point in a presidential letter from Bush, since it would not bind Obama. The sides decided instead on a list, compiled by the White House and delivered to Obama's transition team, that reviews all understandings and agreements.

In addition to the nuclear issue, Israel is also hoping to receive promised military aid and advanced weapons systems, and to restrict the U.S. supply of advanced weapons to Arab states."

more

[elleng]

1. Is this a JOKE?

Or was he referring to 'secret' stuff?

Pardon me for this, please, but STFU, guy!

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Why is it a joke?

Why shouldn't one administration pass on info to the other?

[elleng]

5. To explain the 'special relationship'

sounds rather condescending to me; what in the world could W tell O about such, that he's not aware of?

Others within the admin, DOD etc., might have useful info; NOT W, I think.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I want to know why Australia can't have a *special relationship* too...

After all, the Americans went and plonked Pine Gap in the middle of the country and there's a bunch of US installations around the place. We're being shortchanged! Why can't Australia get the special BFF friendship band to wear as well? ;)

[Behind the Aegis]

10. And has nothing to do with the question or the topic.

But, then you knew that. ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I didn't realise you were some sort of thread monitor...

And pretending to be a mind-reader as well! I'm ever so impressed! For anyone slow on the uptake, the OP is about Israel's special relationship with the US, my post is talking about special relationships with the US. Pretty clear-cut...

[Behind the Aegis]

25. Touchy, aren't we?

I was just expressing an opinion about your statement. Nothing more. ;)

[oberliner]

26. The Other Special Relationship: The United States and Australia at the Start of the 21st Century

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/Display.Cfm?pubID=760

Incidentally, the primary special relationship (to which US-Australia is the "other" one) is the one between the US and the UK according to the US Army War College.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Has Obama been president for the past 8 years?

I was under the "illusion" that Bush has been president. I am sure he has has more access to more information than PE Obama. Whereas other groups (DoD, etc.) would have info, that will come in due time. So, you haven't explained, why is this a "joke?"

[elleng]

15. W has been 'resident,'

and he has ACCESS to information; in order for O to receive such, he and his admin will have to receive it from 'other groups.'

It sounded to me as if W was telling him WHY we're so attached, which is essentially for political reasons, and suggesting he's not aware of such is somewhat condescending, IMO.

[cali]

28. if you haven't figured out why bush is a joke and why having the inarticulate

asshole explain anything whatsoever, you haven't been paying attention. It's also presumptuous as hell to leak this.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. I know why Bush is a joke, however, that wasn't the "joke" in question.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Ehud Olmert is on his way to jail, and Bush should be at The Hague

So having one criminal talk to another criminal should come as no surprise.

[Cheap_Trick]

3. We're "just friends" with Israel, right?

Or is it friends with benefits......

[Behind the Aegis]

4. As opposed to all the other nations we are "friends" with? Including...

...the ones we have been spying on?

[Violet_Crumble]

6. That 'special relationship' stuff is pretty lame, imo..

Reminds me of little kids in a kiddie club where they have a special handshake and are BFFs and the kids who just aren't special like them are excluded.....

[elleng]

7. YUP!

.

[LeftishBrit]

11. Well, political leaders have a way to go before they reach the stage of little kids

Countries will always have special relationships and alliances. Sometimes they work well. Sometimes they become distorted and don't really suit the interests of either country. It happened with the UK/America under the friendships of Maggie 'n Ronnie and Dubya 'n Tony; and it's frequently happened with America and Israel.

A *good* 'special relationship' can work for good.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I haven't seen the term *special relationship* used the same way with any other country...

And if there ever was a rare case of it, it wouldn't be with the silly frequency of it being used when it comes to Israel and the US. It just comes across as very childish and immature..

[LeftishBrit]

18. You would have, if you lived here.

It's constantly used with regard to the UK/America relationship.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Possibly, but it's still incredibly wanky and childish...

I have a sneaking suspicion that in a few years from now when the US is on its slide into ex-superpower obscurity, no-one will care less about any *special relationship* the US has with Israel or any other country....

[LeftishBrit]

20. So is almost everything in international politics.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Not really....

While international politics is merely a much larger version of individuals interacting with each other, a lot of it does make sense and isn't childish and wanky, not like the BFF nonsense that *special relationship* implies. I can't really see where the relationship of Israel to the US is any more special or valuable than any of its other allies...

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I just remembered something...

The relationship between Australia and New Zealand could be described as a *special relationship*, though I usually see it referred to as *close ties* etc. But in that case I understand the reason for the relationship, what with us being neighbours with very similar beginnings when it comes to European settlement, and the logical need to align things like taxation systems, immigration, etc....

[oberliner]

27. It is used to describe the US-UK relationship quite often

I think Churchill was the first to use that phrase to describe the relationship between the two countries.

Here's a wikipedia page about it, for what that is worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_the_United_States_and_United_Kingdom

[madrchsod]

13. i`m sure barack knows about the "special relationship" with israel.

maybe the boys are getting a bit nervous that barack may actually do something about the Israeli/Palestinian problem that the Israeli government will not like

[ixion]

14. The rogue state Israel can go pound sand

the US should not continue to support their crimes against humanity.

[RC]

17. Absolutely! We need to take a good hard look at all the "Aid" we give Israel and

decide it what is really necessary. I don't see where we can afford to support any other country when we are bankrupt ourselves.

[cali]

29. gad. how can you be so blind? hate is the only explanation

The U.S. is far more of a "rogue" nation, if you're talking about oppression of others than Israel has ever been. Same with starting wars and interfering in other countries' affairs. But that's a rather simplistic way of looking at it, anyway.

[ixion]

32. I'm not any happier with US foreign policies...

hatred has nothing to do with it. Just the opposite.

[Shaktimaan]

37. so we shouldn't support any nations who commit

human rights violations, according to you? That doesn't leave very many nations to pal around with does it?

Look, the US supports Israel because it benefits the US. That's how all nations work, they support their interests. A nation's crimes have to be substantial before they will override its allies need to look out for their own best interests. Like Myanmar's, for example.

Incidentally, Israel has not been committing any crimes against humanity. It has committed human rights violations and has oppressive and sometimes ethnocentric policies, but its actions do not nearly approach the level of Slobodan Milosevic or anything.

[ixion]

40. You can rationalize and make excuses all you want... that doesn't make it right

or better.

The US should stop committing crimes against humanity and should not 'pal around' with nations who do. And Israel does, indeed. Don't kid yourself. And why? Because that's the ethical thing to do. The rest is just so much BS.

[Shaktimaan]

41. I have a few questions about that policy of yours.

Exactly which crime(s) against humanity do you believe Israel has been committing lately?

And, if Israel commits crimes against humanity, then what nations are, in your opinion, not committing crimes against humanity and are therefore OK to engage with?

----------

How far should we go in shunning those nations which don't meet up to our ethical standards? Should we merely not be allies with them or fight with them against a common enemy? Or should we stop trading with them also? What if they are a really evil country but they posses resources that we desperately need? Then is it OK to trade with them?

What if a state that's really, really bad wants to buy lots and lots of dollars from us, thus keeping our economy solvent and ensuring that millions of the poorest Americans still have jobs and access to medicaid and stuff. Should America sell the dollars to Country X?

What if there is a dictatorship that commits heinous crimes but the people are basically good... should we stop trading with them allowing the people to lose access to fuel and medicine? Or should we keep trading with them for the people's sake even though the dictator will use those funds to do unspeakable evil with? Or should we just invade with a coalition of the willing in order to free the people and bring democracy to the state?

extra credit: Can you guess the three countries that I'm referencing above?

[ixion]

42. I guess if you have to ask

then you probably will never get it. It's a crime against Humanity to wall-in a subset of the populace and treat them like so much livestock, or worse. That's something they're doing every day, and that's just the beginning.

I'm a populist, and something of an idealist. I do not consider my ideas constrained by the semantics of "policy". Concepts like "policy" rarely work in favor of the People. Rather, they tend to serve the ruling class. The ruling class wants to maintain the status quo. Therefore, anything presented as 'policy' should be immediately suspect...but I digress.

To continue, I believe in autonomy. That is, I think we should fabricate the things we need, with the many resources available to us right here at home. And if we don't have a resource, we should innovate and create a solution that is sustainable and stable. Making back-room deals with dictators only serves the ruling class. By making the things we need here, there would be plenty of jobs, and a solid economy based on a sustainable model.

We need to take care of things at home, and shouldn't spend time worrying about what's going on in everyone else's backyard. In case you hadn't noticed, the fabric of our society is being shredded by these 'wars' of abstraction on things like terror and drugs. Our treasury is being looted as we speak. These machinations are 'policy', and they serve only to enrich a small group of fascists, who really couldn't care less about the poor people of which you speak.

So, yeah, I'm an idealist. I'm for people being allowed to be human. I'm for people being allowed to live their lives with dignity. And the place to start that is here at home. Until we have our own house in harmony, we can only spread discord throughout the world.

Israel and Palestine need to solve their own problems. And neither has shown that they're serious about doing so. Hence, we don't support either. We worry about our own business, because that's currently careening towards a corporate theocracy, which in the long run will, again, only serve the ruling class.

[Vegasaurus]

43. I would bet that everyone here on DU

is in some ways an idealist and also for allowing people to live in dignity.

The problem is that Islamists the world over seem hell bent on ensuring that many people (i.e.Jews, Americans, Westerners) do not live in dignity.

Terrorism is the antithesis of dignity.

A wall prevents terrorists, and while it may make some people's lives more difficult, it prevents death and destruction.

Sometimes idealism doesn't work in the real world.

[ixion]

44. religious extremists of all stripes, not just Islamic extremists

There are Jewish and Christian extremists -- and more -- involved in this as well, and doing just much -- more actually -- than the Islamic ones. That's where your premise falls apart.

[Vegasaurus]

45. There are extremists of all stripes

But the only ones creating worldwide terror are Islamic.

You can't equivocate about this, because there are no "Christian fundamentalists" strapping on bombs and blowing up pizza parlors.

There are no "Jewish extremists" killing 100 innocent people at a wedding, hotel or hospital.

This kind of terrorism is completely owned by Islamists.

[ixion]

46. Poppycock... the largest state sponsor of terror in the world is the US

Don't believe the hype. The US and Israel are two of the behemoths in that regard.

I'll debate this with you no further, as it will not be productive.

[Vegasaurus]

52. Terrorism is acts of violence or murder upon innocents

to create fear and panic.

The US and Israel does not target innocent people and try to harm (purposefully) as many civilians as possible.

[LeftishBrit]

47. Perhaps it's owned mainly by Islamists right now...

but we've (UK) had enormous problems until very recently with terrorist attacks from the IRA and Protestant military factions.

They didn't strap bombs on themselves - suicide bombing wasn't their style - but they *planted* bombs in shops, pubs, anywhere that was likely to be crowded with civilians.

In Northern Ireland it was all the factions that did these things; in other parts of the UK, most of the spin-offs were from the (Catholic) IRA.

Not defending Islamism in the least - it's a murderous far-right doctrine that oppresses at home and threatens abroad - but all extremists are dangerous.

[meowomon]

22. If by "special relationship" you mean...

the role of the US in returning Jerusalem and all of the claimed lands to Israel so that the Israeli government can rebuild the temple, thus fulfilling the Christian prophecy that Jesus will return? That little scenario plays right into Israel's greedy little hand, doesn't it? They get their territory and the crazy right wing Christian Zionists get their messiah and destroy the earth and perpetuate endless war and fear at the same time! God save us from the endtimers. They have infected the government like a foot fungus on a shower room floor.

[Crunchy Frog]

24. It will also insure that there will be a single state

where Jews are a minority. Unless, of course, you think that Jesus really is going to come back and bring about the End Times. Not particularly likely IMO.

[cali]

30. yes, yes. the Israelis

are just soo different from other people. they're greedy and complete pawns of the Christian right.

[Shaktimaan]

31. Wow!

I hope your being funny here because your view of the players in this game is not very charitable.

Besides, Israel already has all of Jerusalem under its control and could rebuild the temple if it wanted to. Israel actually only allow Muslims to enter the Al Aqsa Mosque, where the Temple Mount supposedly is. Jews can't even go there to pray, let alone rebuild. It is all under the administration of the Islamic Waqf.

And it is against US law for any aid to Israel to get used for occupation related activities, such as the security barrier. So America isn't really helping Israel hang on to the OPT as much as you might think.

[azurnoir]

34. Your forgetting about something

Besides, Israel already has all of Jerusalem under its control and could rebuild the temple if it wanted to. Israel actually only allow Muslims to enter the Al Aqsa Mosque, where the Temple Mount supposedly is. Jews can't even go there to pray, let alone rebuild. It is all under the administration of the Islamic Waqf.

Seems but of course I could be mistaken that the Likud party paid a "diplomatic" visit to the mosque sometime in the early autumn of 2000.

And yes Israel allows all Israeli Muslims to visit the mosque

[Shaktimaan]

36. No, I didn't forget anything.

Jews are not normally allowed to go there. Sharon visited in 2000 ostensibly to look at progress on the archeological dig and he had received permission from both Barak and the Islamic Waqf that administrates the site. And while Sharon did visit the Mosque, he did not enter the sanctuary nor did he pray or make press remarks from Al Aqsa itself. His statements to the press after were not particularly inflammatory, especially considering that they were made from under a shower of stones being thrown and dropped in protest.

He was supposedly there for excavation related business, but it was actually intended to work as a political maneuver against Barak. The visit didn't have anything to do with the Palestinians per say, it was all about internal Israeli politics, specifically relating to the upcoming election. Obviously it had repercussions within the Arab community, but inciting them was not the intention of the visit.

And Israel does not only just allow Israeli Muslims to visit the mosque. To my knowledge all Muslims who have access to the Old City are allowed there. I know that they sometimes restrict access for security reasons, but generally speaking it is open to the public.

[azurnoir]

50. So Sharon's party was to view archeology?

The Likud has a different statement about the visit, and BTW the PLO/Fatah is the Islamist Waqf please do tell, because it was the security cheif of the PLO that gave assurances no mention of religous leader is made however

On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon and members of the Likud Party, along with 1,000 armed guards, visited the al-Aqsa compound; a large group Palestinians went to protest the visit. After Sharon and the Likud Party members left, a demonstration erupted and Palestinians on the grounds of the Haram al-Sharif began throwing stones and other missiles at Israeli riot police. Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets at the crowd, injuring 24 people. The visit sparked a seven-year uprising by the Palestinians, commonly referred to as the al-Aqsa Intifada.<76> On September 29, the Israeli government deployed 2,000 riot police to the mosque. When a group of Palestinians left the mosque after Friday prayers, they hurled stones at the police. The police then stormed the mosque compound, firing both live ammunition and rubber bullets at the group of Palestinians, killing four and wounding about 200.<77>

While all Arab and Muslim citizens of Israel are allowed to enter and pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque, Palestinian Muslims living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip face several restrictions. Palestinian males must be married and 50 years of age and women must be married and 45 years of age to enter the mosque. Palestinian visits are therefore rare during most of the year, except during the month of Ramadan. Israeli reasoning for the restrictions is that older, married Palestinians are less likely "to cause trouble".<73>

The site of the mosque is not accessible to Jews due to a restriction placed on them by Israel's chief rabbinates in 1967. Their position was that the Jewish people were "ceremonially unclean and might accidentally tread on the place."<74> Israeli governmental restrictions only forbid Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, but allow Jews as well as, other non-Muslims to visit for certain hours on certain days in the week. Several rabbis, and several Zionist leaders have demanded the right of Jews to pray at the site on Jewish holidays.<75>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque

On September 28, the Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon together with a Likud party delegation surrounded by hundreds of Israeli riot police, visited the Temple Mount compound which is widely considered the third holiest site in Islam.<39> Although the compound is under Israeli sovereignty and is the holiest site in Judaism, Sharon was only permitted to enter the compound after the Israeli Interior Minister had received assurances from the Palestinian Authority's security chief that no problems would arise if he made the visit.<40> Sharon did not actually go into the al-Aqsa Mosque, and went during normal tourist hours.

The stated purpose for Sharon's visit of the compound was to assert the right of all Israelis to visit the Temple Mount<41><42>; however, according to Likud spokesman Ofir Akounis, the purpose was to "show that under a Likud government will remain under Israeli sovereignty." <43> In response to accusations by Ariel Sharon of government readiness to concede "Israeli sovereignty" over the site to Palestinians, the Israeli government gave Sharon permission to visit the area. When alerted of his intentions, senior Palestinian figures, such as Yassir Arafat, Saeb Erekat, and Faisal Husseini all asked Sharon to call off his visit. <44> The Palestinians, some 10 days earlier, had just observed their annual memorial day for the Sabra and Shatila massacre, conducted when Sharon was Defense Minister.<44>

His visit was condemned by the Palestinians as a provocation and an incursion, as were his armed bodyguards that arrived on the scene with him. Critics claim that Sharon knew that the visit could trigger violence, and that the purpose of his visit was political.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada

[Shaktimaan]

51. ????

OK, I read this sentence five times and I haven't gotten any closer to understanding what it means. What exactly are you trying to say, and how does it refute, support or otherwise relate to what I posted earlier?

BTW the PLO/Fatah is the Islamist Waqf please do tell, because it was the security cheif of the PLO that gave assurances no mention of religous leader is made however

Now, this part I understood: The Likud has a different statement about the visit,

But that is precisely what I was referring to when I said this: He was supposedly there for excavation related business, but it was actually intended to work as a political maneuver against Barak. The visit didn't have anything to do with the Palestinians per say, it was all about internal Israeli politics, specifically relating to the upcoming election.Obviously it had repercussions within the Arab community, but inciting them was not the intention of the visit.

I'm still not sure what your point is exactly. Is it your contention that Sharon intended to spark the intifada? It is not as though the visit was truly the thing that caused the second intifada anyway. It was a reasonable time to start it because of the visit, but the intifada itself had been planned from beforehand. If I remember correctly, the Mitchell Report had ascertained that it was the breakdown of talks during Camp David in 2000 that was the actual cause of the intifada. Sharon's visit was just a convenient excuse to start it.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing exactly, so I don't know if that even pertains to your post. Are you disagreeing with me about something?

[azurnoir]

33. I think "special relationship" relates to this

Israel and the United States have a longtime understanding on the nuclear issue, which was reached between former prime minister Golda Meir and former president Richard Nixon in 1969. Israel promised at that time that it would hew to a policy of ambiguity. In 1977 Israel asked Kissinger, who helped formulate the nuclear understanding, to explain it to incoming president Jimmy Carter, who wanted to push arms control and nonproliferation. The nuclear understanding has been continued through successive Israeli and American leaders.

In other words Israel wants to be assured the continuation of "don't ask don't tell".

[Shaktimaan]

39. point being? np

[azurnoir]

49. A IMO more one of the more realistic

reasons for the "special relationship" than the bringing on of the "end times" and the reason for your comment?

[LeftishBrit]

35. In the midst of all the rest of this, one little point:

if Olmert honestly thinks that Bush can *explain* anything to anyone, he hasn't been paying much attention over the last few years. Or in other words, he's misoverestimating Bush!