The Case for U.S. Distancing From Israel - THE ATLANTIC

[grassfed]

By MAX FISHER on December 08, 2009 12:28pm

Israel has historically been one of America's closest allies, but a small contingent of writers is suggesting our closeness could cost more than it's worth. Last month, three high-profile columnists made the case for disengaging from the long, fraught Israel-Palestine peace process. Now some are saying we should diplomatically distance ourselves from Israel itself.

Better For Us, Better For Israel Financial Times's Tony Judt argues that a little distance would help us both. "If the Jews of Europe and North America took their distance from Israel (as many have begun to do), the assertion that Israel was 'their' state would take on an absurd air. Over time, even Washington might come to see the futility of attaching American foreign policy to the delusions of one small Middle Eastern state. This, I believe, is the best thing that could possibly happen to Israel itself. It would be obliged to acknowledge its limits. It would have to make other friends, preferably among its neighbours." He adds, "The perverse insistence upon identifying a universal Jewishness with one small piece of territory is dysfunctional in many ways. It is the single most important factor accounting for the failure to solve the Israel-Palestine imbroglio. It is bad for Israel and, I would suggest, bad for Jews elsewhere who are identified with its actions."

Cut Off U.S. PACs Making It Worse The Guardian's Andrew Kadi and Aaron Levitt report on a group called The Hebron Fund. "The fact that the Hebron Fund likely raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for extremist Israeli settlers at a major US venue with little public scrutiny is a troubling sign for those who hope that the US can play a constructive role in achieving a just peace in the Middle East," they write. "Non-profit organisations like the Hebron Fund play a substantial role in fuelling the Middle East conflict, but largely fly under the radar in the US. <...> Until the public, advocacy groups, media and the US government scrutinise and rein in settlement non-profits like the Hebron Fund, policy statements about peace in the Middle East will do nothing to stop the daily violence and dispossession suffered by Palestinians.

'Looming US-Israel Split' The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan thinks it's all about Iran. "That's the likeliest consequence of the current awful choices the West has with respect to Iran's nuclear weapon capacity," he writes. "I can see this conflict coming and do not believe it can be contained or managed without a more open and honest public dialogue than the cramped and emotional one that occurs in Washington. The truth is: Israel and the US have very different interests with respect to Iran, and if Israel launches a war on Iran, against US wishes, then the alliance will never be the same."

more
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/The-Case-for-US-Distancing-From-Israel-1838

The Debate

Israel's Ethnic Myth, Tony Judt, Financial Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7f8fafee-e366-11de-8d36-00144feab49a.html

US Cash and Extemist Settlers, Andrew Kadi and Aaron Levitt, The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/08/us-settlers-hebron-fund-israeli

The Looming US-Israel Split, Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/the-looming-usisrael-split.html

---

[Scurrilous]

1. German ex-diplomats: Constant support of Israel must cease

Former German ambassadors call for assertive stand against Israel’s settlement policy; say Israel cannot have peace, keep hold on territories

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3817834,00.html

<snip>

"Twenty-four former German ambassadors urged the German government to take a harder position against Israel and to rethink its Middle East policy.

In letters sent to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, they ask for a more resolute stance against Israel's settlement policy.

"Israel will not be able to keep on hoping to gain peace and retain its hold on Palestinian territories at the same time,” the group wrote in a position paper quoted by the Süddeutsche Zeitung daily."

<snip>

"The diplomats stressed that Germany has committed itself to protect Israel's security “as a historical legacy,” however, true security can “only be achieved through political means, not through occupation and colonization or by relying on military superiority. Instead, it can be reached by a withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories and a subsequent Palestinian state.”

The German Middle East policy, added the paper, should focus on the “urgent necessities of the future”, without forgetting the German-Jewish past.

The Middle East conflict as it is would constitute a "breeding ground for extremism that seriously threatens public safety, not only in the region itself but also in Europe and other parts of the world,” continued the paper.

The paper further calls for a "tougher stance" against Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which would demand they implement the two-state solution. "The continuation of certain benefits or financial support to one side or the other, as well as an increasing convergence with the European Union, could be made dependable of concrete progresses in conflict management."

[aranthus]

2. What a steaming load.

The only one of the three "authors" who actually arrgues for a US-Israel split is Judt, who doesn't want an Israel in the first place.

[LeftishBrit]

3. These are three rather different opinions - and none of them seems to be saying exactly what the

headline does.

(1) Judt, an anti-Zionist Jew, is in fact calling mainly for *Diaspora Jews* to distance themselves from Israel.

(2) Kadi and Levitt are criticizing the Hebron Fund for supporting Israeli extremist settlers, and suggesting that such organizations need more scrutiny. Hear hear! - but the Hebron Fund is not run by either America or Israel. So criticizing the Hebron Fund for its donations to extremist settlers is no more a demand for 'America to distance itself from Israel', than criticizing Noraid for its donations to the IRA would have been a demand for 'America to distance itself from Ireland'.

(3) Andrew Sullivan is saying that *if* Israel attacks Iran unilaterally, then America probably *will* distance itself from Israel. Which is indeed the extremely probable consequence of such an action (despite the more paranoid theories that keep coming up that America would then promptly start WWIII on Israel's behalf!). In fact, for that reason and many many others, I don't think that Israel *will* attack Iran unilaterally.