creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
25 May 2012
The Unraveling Myth of Watergate

It was, they said, the crime of the century. An attempted coup d'etat by Richard Nixon, stopped by two … Read More.

22 May 2012
What If Zimmerman Walks Free?

Three months ago, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Handcuffed,… Read More.

18 May 2012
Has the Bell Begun to Toll for the GOP?

Among the more controversial chapters in "Suicide of a Superpower," my book published last fall, … Read More.

Bibi's Hollow Victory

Share Comment

"The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago, and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital."

With this defiant declaration, to a thunderous ovation at AIPAC, Benjamin Netanyahu informed the United States that East Jerusalem, taken from Jordan in the Six Day War, is not occupied land. It is Israeli land and Israel's forever, and no Palestinian state will share Jerusalem. Israel alone decides what is built, and where, in the Holy City.

With his declaration and refusal to walk back the decision to build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, which blew up the Biden mission, "Bibi" goes home a winner over Barack Obama.

But it is a temporary triumph and hollow victory — over Israel's indispensable ally. For the clash revealed that the perceived vital interests of Israel now collide with vital U.S. interest in the Middle East.

We have clarity. There is now visible daylight between U.S. and Israeli policy for all the world to see. And America cannot back down without eviscerating her credibility in the Arab and Muslim world

What are the major points of contention?

To Netanyahu, withdrawal from Gaza was a strategic blunder that led to a Hamas takeover and rockets on Israel. That blunder will not be repeated with the West Bank. Israel had a hellish time forcing 8,000 Jews to leave Gaza and will not force 250,000 Jews to leave ancestral lands on the West Bank to create a Palestinian state where the possibility will always exist that Hamas will win at the ballot box and become the government. As for Jerusalem, its city limits are now Israel's permanent borders. Annexation is irreversible.

The American position?

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied territory. Building there violates international law. Peace requires a sharing of Jerusalem, return of almost all of the West Bank and withdrawal of the Jewish settlers. And any land annexed by Israel must be compensated for with Israeli land ceded to the Palestinians.

That the U.S. position is not anti-Israel is attested to by the fact that Prime Ministers Ehud Barack and Ehud Olmert came close to a peace with the Palestinians based on these principles.

Netanyahu, however, does not accept them. For he won office denouncing them, and in his ruling coalition are parties that not only opposed withdrawal from Gaza, they oppose a Palestinian state.

Given the irreconcilable positions, the deadlock, why will Israel not prevail as she always prevails in such collisions? Why would Bibi's "No" to Obama's demand for a halt to the building of settlements and a cancellation of the 1,600 housing units in Jerusalem not be the final and irrevocable answer that Obama must grudgingly accept?

Answer: There is a new party to the quarrel: the U.S.

military, in the person of Gen. David Petraeus.

According to Foreign Policy magazine, in January, a delegation of senior officers from Petraeus' command were sent to brief Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen.

"The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CentCom's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israel's intransigence on the Arab-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that (George) Mitchell himself was ... 'too old, too slow and too late.'"

Mullen took this stark message — that America was seen as too weak to stand up to Israel, and the U.S. military posture was eroding in the Arab world as a result — straight to the White House. Hence, when Joe Biden was sandbagged in Israel, he apparently tore into Bibi in private.

"This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Yedioth Ahronoth further reported: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and U.S. policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops."

Biden was saying Israeli intransigence could cost American lives.

Each new report of settlement expansion, each new seizure of Palestinian property, each new West Bank clash between Palestinians and Israeli troops inflames the Arab street, humiliates our Arab allies, exposes America as a weakling that cannot stand up to Israel, and imperils our troops and their mission in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As this message has now been delivered by Gen. Petraeus to his commander in chief, Obama simply cannot back down again. If he does not stand up now for U.S. interests, which are being imperiled by Israeli actions, he will lose the backing of his soldiers.

U.S.-Israeli relations are approaching a "Whose side are you on?" moment. Either Bibi backs down this time — or Obama loses his soldiers.

Patrick Buchanan is the author of the book "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM


Comments

7 Comments | Post Comment
Great Article!!
I do realize that America supports a so-called two state solution, but I fail to understand how that will bring peace to the region. After all, there is no oil under the land that would become the new Palestinian state, nothing at all that would create wealth so it seems to me that you would have an impoverished state that would be the pawns of their much larger and wealthier neighbors. No, perhaps I am missing something but I just don't see how putting an angry impoverished people in an angry impoverished nation on a diminished Israeli border will bring peace to that region.
Comment: #1
Posted by: John Miles
Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:02 PM
Great Article!!
I do realize that America supports a so-called two state solution, but I fail to understand how that will bring peace to the region. After all, there is no oil under the land that would become the new Palestinian state, nothing at all that would create wealth so it seems to me that you would have an impoverished state that would be the pawns of their much larger and wealthier neighbors. No, perhaps I am missing something but I just don't see how putting an angry impoverished people in an angry impoverished nation on a diminished Israeli border will bring peace to that region.
Comment: #2
Posted by: John Miles
Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:04 PM
Sorry Pat, lousy article, full of factual errors. Since your quoting Israeli newspapers,check out the Jerusalem Post this morning. General Petraeus denies the quote and the implications. An officer and a gentleman, Petraeus called Israel's Chief of Staff, Gaby Ashkenazi and apologized.OK Pat. How about a retraction! here's the link:
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171814
Comment: #3
Posted by: avraham
Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:56 PM
Jews are smart?? About as smart as Anthem-Blue Cross. Asan American Jew I can tell you that a large % of us are pissed at Bibi and his orthodox fanatics. He and his fanatics should share a city with Hamas. There is enough hate there till Armageddon. Unless the Jews in Israel pull back from this self immolation its going to get much hotter.
Comment: #4
Posted by: alf1052
Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:05 PM
Pat - Excellent article once again - you hit the nail on the head. Israel is already a leech and now sitting
on our shoulders, thinking itself as giant, and trying to piss in our ear. President Obama was right to
put Netenyahu in his place which is way down. Beggars should not think themselves as givers.
Thanks for writing what is right - and it makes sense.
Comment: #5
Posted by: ASM
Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:23 PM
The middle eastern nuclear arms race is another example of how the U.S. errs in coddling Israel while demonizing its Muslim neighbors. Iran gets demonized & threatened with sanctions and even with U.S. military invasion because it may be bent on acquiring forbidden nuclear weapons. But a major reason why Iran or any other middle eastern Muslim nation might possibly want to have such weapons is because belligerent, threatening neighbor Israel long ago acquired a sizable arsenal of nukes.

Arguably, any middle east arms race was originally provoked by Israel long ago, not Iran.
Israel developed nukes in violation of international laws it signed on to, by installing spies inside the gov't of friend & ally the U.S. to steal U.S. nuclear secrets. Some of those Israeli spies today languish in US jails serving long sentences)- but the Israeli politicians who employed them have faced virtually no sanction or penalty. Instead, the U.S. has continued to subsidize Israel with generous gifts of US dollars. Presumably, many of those U.S. gov't dollars have ended up funding Israel's nuclear program.

Israel remains a much bigger part of the nuclear problem than Iran. It's unfair & hypocritical to
demonize Iran & other nations for wanting to go nuclear, but accepting & tolerating Israel as an illegally armed-to-the-teeth nuclear power threatening Muslim neighbors nearby.

Why is 99% of the pressure applied to Iran but not to Israel? Why isn't Israel made part of the nuclear non-proliferation/disarmament equation?
An equation whereby Iran (and any other country in the region) is persuaded to abandon nuclear ambitions IF Israel agrees to disarming itself of nukes too,an agreement perhaps to be reached by applying strong international sanctions against Israel,if necessary. This may be the only way to ensure a non-nuclear middle east, and to reverse the nuclear arms race there which Israel, with indirect help of the U.S., started in the first place.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Hermesacat
Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:07 PM
What's this "ancestral lands on the West Bank" bullshit?
Netanyahu, has no more historical connection to Palestine than Buchanon does.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Bilejones
Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:56 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

8 May 2009 Jim Crow Liberalism

27 Aug 2010 The Myth of Equality

6 Mar 2012 Obama's Remaking of America