Don't be Surprised When US Challenges to Israel Prompt Others

Alan Dershowitz points out in the JPost that what Israel did in stopping the flotilla was in compliance with international law.  I tend to agree with him the actions weren't wise however, and the policy must be judged a failure. Israel is on the defensive on this in the propaganda war.

One wonders though, whether any of the administrations actions towards Israel encouraged this sort of situation.  Michael Goodwin has an op-ed in the NY Post this morning, alleging that the Obama administration's weakness has encouraged others to challenge Israel:

The president's appeasement policies helped to create the incident. Israel took the bait, but the trap was set in Washington.

fWeakness always begets aggression, and, like clockwork, Obama's repeated signals that he is weakening America's commitment to Israel are emboldening the Jewish state's enemies. From Syria to Iran to Lebanon, from Hezbollah to Hamas and the PLO, the wolves smell blood and are trying to gauge whether they can get close enough for the kill [emphasis added].

And whether the United States will stop them. That they even dare hope we won't reflects the danger of Obama's demented decisions.

While there's some hyperbole in Goodwin's thesis, there's also a grain of truth in it.  The Obama administration had a right to be angry with Netanyahu about the settlement announcement during VP Biden's visit, but the manner in which they handled it, with public recriminations and the frosty meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, was incredibly short-sited, reactionary, and detrimental to the peace process.

This is not to say that we must agree with all of Israel's actions, or we cannot constructively criticize how some of their actions in the long run, make it more difficult for them to live in peace.  But instead of leap-frogging the settlement issue and negotiating on final borders, the WH fixated on it, and used it to send a message through its shoddy treatment of Netanyahu during an official state visit. The message was received: it gave the Palestinians an excuse to refuse to come to the table, and led the Israelis to wonder whether the US really cared about Israeli security.  In the past, Israeli prime ministers have given concessions when they were confident they had the backing of the world's preeminent power.  But now that the world senses that US support and commitment to Israel is waning, can we really be surprised that other ambitious powers are throwing down the gauntlet in challenging Israel, and in the process, fanning the flames of conflict in a volatile region? Now another aid ship is dispatched to run the Gaza blockade. The WH should be using its often invoked diplomacy to restrain both sides, and this includes pressuring Turkey and other countries not to further provoke an already dangerous situation.

Another fallout from this is the Israelis are sensing the US is drifting from its commitment to Israel. Tellingly, the Mossad Chief Dagan stated yesterday in front of the Knesset that "Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden." He also said that, "Bit by bit, Israel is becoming less of a strategic asset for America." This may embolden the hard-liners to argue that Israel must act unilaterally in its own interests, US preferences notwithstanding.

There are many in the foreign policy establishment that would much rather see the US throw Israel under the bus and forge some grand bargains with other regional powers, like Iran and Turkey, so the US can withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.  To this, I would caution whether it's really in US interests for the Israelis to feel under siege without any US support.  Not only may it encourage others to challenge Israel with violence and inflame passions further setting back the peace process, it would give ammunition to the hardliners in Netanyahu's cabinet that Israel must act alone in all matters regarding national security. That logic may extend itself to bombing Iranian nuclear sites, setting the whole region afire.

With Israel, the administration would have been better off pressuring or criticizing Israel in private.  Instead, it used the public criticism in the short term to curry favor with the Arab Muslim world. And we see what the results of that policy are--it's open season on the Jewish state while the US passively stands by.  It's not too late for the Obama administration to try and turn the temperature down in the region.  It seems to have learned that its past actions were counterproductive as it was quietly trying to mend relations with Israel.  The question is will it act quickly to prevent more dangerous confrontations, or will it leave Israel to fend for itself, which may result in, I fear, more violence in the region. This will only set back US foreign policy even further.