|Submited on :||Thu, 6th of Dec 2018 - 03:26:26 AM|
|Post ID :||a3k0xy|
|Post Name :||t3_a3k0xy|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2qhnn|
No submission statement?
this article ignores all the structural stuff that enabled george bush senior to push israeli concessions
1) internal usa position : post 1991 the us was at the peak off its global power and influence the su was no more and real opposing power structures have yet to reform
2) middle east regional balance: after crushing saddam the usa could push israeli security connections without triggering israeli political backlash
3) israel internal position : the settlers political movement and support base were small then 180,000 vs 750000 today
israel had 110% debt to gdp 59% today israel was desperate for cash to deal with russian immigration (usa leverage)
israel today needs the usa less and the us needs israel more than in the 1990's
this means the usa cannot violate its deal with israel
(political and military support in exchange for intelligence tech and basing rights ) without massive consequences
israel has more options and more room to maneuver
There was a great article in New Yorker about this a few years back but I think the writer didnt understand and explain it in depth.
The writer talked about G HW Bush having some AIPAC guy in the Oval Office and yelling at him about him being President and the guy being some nobody lobbyist and that that AIPAC guy should just listen to a big strong man like himself.
But Bush didn't understand that one day he was not going to be President and the guy and AIPAC were still going to do their thing. They had more power than him because their goals in a sense would outlive the petty lives of any individual.
Big reason why instituitions are so powerful.
Where is the submission statement ?
Seems to me that the only reason George H.W. Bush could be tough with Israel was due to the fact that at the end of the cold war, and the follow dismemberment of the Soviet Union, there was a massive inflow of Russian Jews into Israel. That was the main reason for the country to ask for such a big loan.
Right after this, the Clean Break: A New Strategy for Security in the Realm was created as a plan for Israel to break free from US financial aid and also break apart the Middle East to secure its own stability. The authors of the plan served under George W. Bush, along with Donald Rumsfeld (GHWB nemesis).
Article on how the US tied aid (loan guarantees) to Israel to demands for no new settlements. This was accepted by Israel in 1990 (negogiated by Jim Baker), but for a bigger loan guarantee /10 billions) in 1991 Israel and then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir demurred. This led to a showdown with Congress where Bush ultimately prevailed. Israel relied on AIPAC, but it wasn't enough. For the first time, the pro-Israel lobby was genuinely split. Bush himself portrayed himself publicly as the "underdog" in a fight against lobbyists.
No president since, had demanded Israel refrain from settlements as condition for US aid.
Article also mentions the Madrid peace conference (Oct 91) , which didn't lead to anything, but made Israelis open to negotiations with PLO short time after.
The "what if" garbage articles looking to put the blame on Israel as if doing anything different and putting the blame on their side only would have changed the entire conflict.
this isnt a geopolitic discussion.
Where does the article put blame on Israel? Playing the victim card when no blame has been placed and ridiculing the discussion isn't constructive either.
Had the United States government continued Bush’s tough-love approach, rather than abandoning it, Kurtzer and other foreign policy veterans argue, the U.S. may have succeeded in brokering the kind of lasting peace deal that still eludes Israel and the Palestinians.
The article start with their basis that Israel is to blame for the current status due to USA soft hand as if there is correlation. only israel, no ones else fault.
“It’s pretty remarkable that no Republican or Democratic president since has been willing to put meaningful pressure on Israel,” said Khaled Elgindy, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who advised Palestinian negotiators from 2004 to 2009. “Even as they have learned what the peace process has required, they’ve been less willing to do what’s needed.”
then they quote the palestinians advisor who shockingly also blames Israel, gasp !
later they try to link bush "tough stance" with israels and Rabin's peace initiative as if there was correlation and not because Rabin actually believed it.