Obama spells end of blank cheques for Israel

[kpete]

Obama spells end of blank cheques for Israel
Agence France-Presse
Published: Sunday December 7, 2008

JERUSALEM (AFP) — Israel can no longer expect "blank cheques" from Washington once president-elect Barack Obama's administration takes over in January, a former US ambassador to the Jewish state said on Sunday.

"The era of the blank cheque is over," said Martin Indyk, director of the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute who is considered close to incoming secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

"The Obama administration intends to be engaged, using diplomacy to try to bring about a safer and more peaceful place, that is different from the seven years of the (George W.) Bush administration," he said on public radio.

"President Obama surely will want to work with Israel on this (Middle East) agenda. But there are obligations on both sides (Israel and the Arabs). Both sides will have to respect these obligations," Indyk said.

more:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_spells_end_of_blank_cheques_1207.html

[sixmile]

1. Good

nt

[physioex]

3. Why does one of the richest nations in the world need all that money?

They aren't using it to feed their people.

[Taverner]

6. And they don't even ask for it

Its more because of lobbying groups here than it is them lobbying us

[byeya]

2. money for nothing

I am hopeful the new President will be even handed but
I am not really expecting a change.

[physioex]

4. Correct....

Welcome to DU. It is actually the lobbies we need to change not the politicians.

[northernlights]

16. not true...

money for a lot of crap in return.

[Mosby]

5. Why would Indyk stir the pot like this?

Once the elections happen in Israel the peace process should resume, it's irresponsible for him to be making comments like this. After all the US gives financial assistance to Egypt, the PA and UNWRA to the tune of billions per year, why no mention of those blank checks?

[Taverner]

7. Because it might make voters in Israel think

Think of diplomacy first rather than the "shoot first, ask questions never" policy the Likud currently pursues

[Mosby]

9. So you think it's Ok for state dept wannabe like Indyk

to try to influence Israeli elections?

Likud has no "policies" just positions, they do not constitute the current gov of Israel.

[Taverner]

10. Likud is a hate group

Comparable to Hamas or Fatah.

Think Ulster/Sinn Fein. We patched that problem up, we can patch this one.

If there is peace, Likud, Hamas and Fatah will go back to being average murderous thugs and gangs.

And yes, they do influence it enough right now - way too much for anyone with half a brain to accept

[Mosby]

14. Likud certainly engages in hateful rhetoric

but they are a legitimate political party in Israel. For all their anti-Palestinian rhetoric, Bibi as PM gave control of Hebron to the PA and later signed the Wye River agreement which expanded PA control over 15% or so of the West Bank. Both of these actions indicate that Likud is capable of compromise if they think it will move the process forward.

[Taverner]

19. They don't want comprimise, and the only reason they did that was to placate Europe and the West

Sure they are a legitimate political party there, so is the Communist Party. Doesn't make their ideas any more sane though.

What bothers me most is that the peace plan back at the turn of the century was sabotauged by both Fatah (and Arafat) and Likud. Neither of those two groups wants peace - that's something those lowly 'people' want.

[sixmile]

8. If Netanyahu becomes the PM the "peace" process dies

There are no chances for peace with a right wing hawk running the government.

[Tutonic]

12. If Netanyahu gets elected he needs to remember what caused his

rejection previously. If he wants to spare himself humiliation a second time around he needs to learn to keep his mouth shut and to rely on the expertise of his emissaries. Sadly, Netanyahu has not demonstrated over the last five years that he can do this.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. I don't entirely agree.

I think the best chance for peace would be negotiations between Likud and Hamas.

Even if the moderates reach an agreement, the hardliners will wreck it. What is needed is to force the extremists to the table.

Even Kadima or Labour and the PLA are not going to reach a peace deal without external pressure; if the President of the USA has to hold feet to the fire they might as well be hardline feet.

In Ireland, the governing parties are now the DUP and Sinn Fein; the UU and SDLP have shrunk a lot since peace.

[Taverner]

20. Exactly

[madrchsod]

11. thank god that`s coming to an end....well thank obama

maybe israelis and the palestinians will be forced to figure out how to live together

[physioex]

13. Don't count on it..

Organizations like AIPAC aren't going away anytime soon. And dont forget nutbags like John Hagee and Pat Robertson.

[Mosby]

15. Israel's aid for '09 has already been approved by congress

But I'm curious why you think taking it away will help the situation.

If we are going to stop subsidizing Israels military expenditures, why don't we stop funding the Palestinian Authority and UNWRA as well?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

18. Why are we funding Israel in the first place?

What do they do with the money the US gives them? Do they commit terror against the Palestianians with this money? I hope Obama stops the flow of cash to Israel so they will stop their terrorist acts against the Palestinians.

[Taverner]

21. Only secular democracy in the mideast

And we were part of their creation

I think we should support them, but time to start showing some tough love

[Behind the Aegis]

22. "And we were part of their creation "

I think that is debateable on a number of levels. Take a look at this: The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology.

[Taverner]

23. Yes there were obstacles

Yes - there were anti-Semitic portions of our congress that opposed it.

But the pro-Israel folks won. And we supported Israel. And we still do. And this is a good thing.

[BoneDaddy]

26. agreed but it needs to come with some accountability

I have NO PROBLEM with Israel defending itself.

I do have a problem with Israel deciding to take aggressive action that compromises the conflict in that area. Time for diplomacy with a carrot and a stick.

Get over the right or wrong attitude because I believe that both sides of this conflict are compromised by that belief system..

Northern Ireland has met with some success. It is time for the adults to give it a shot.

[Taverner]

27. Yep - with you 100%

We need measurable metrics

That is why I am psyched about Hillary as SoS

She's metrics based, not "gut" based

[mopinko]

28. what do they do with the money? why they buy u.s. built arms.

which is why we give a lot of people money. take it out of your pocket, put it into the military industrial complex, and stir up some more hate. lather, rinse, repeat.

[roody]

32. We give it to them to buy weapons and bulldozers from us.

[bigtree]

24. There are blank checks and there are blank checks

Palestinians, for example, need direct aid which isn't wrapped up in political wrangling.

Whatever government Palestinians manage should be expected to produce value for whatever 'aid' they get, just like the Israelis, as Obama might expect.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Well, if by "blank cheque" (as in, "Check", dude?) he's talking about not motivating the peace

process, not calling Israel on things like settlement- which is opposed by a majority of Israelis, mind you... then, yes. The Bush Admin. has been less than useless over there. Clinton, OTOH, did a great deal for peace, at least until Arafat torpedoed the deal in late 2000.

But if people are expecting this to mean an end to all support for Israel, or that Obama is going to call for a full "Right of Return" or similar rhetoric advocating the elimination of the State of Israel, don't hold your breath- it's not gonna happen.

Sorry.

[mopinko]

29. if this person is closed to hillary, somebody better learn to shut up.

first, i suspect this person is just talking out their ass. second, my only beef with hillary for sos is that her people blabbed and leaked like a bunch of third graders all through the campaign. they better start passing out the economy size stfu.

[Mosby]

30. Indyk's latest policy piece

A Time for Diplomatic Renewal: Toward a New U.S. Strategy in the Middle East

snip

Instead, President Obama’s principal focus will need to be on Iran, because the clock is ticking on its nuclear program. He should offer direct official engagement with the Iranian government, without preconditions, along with other incentives to attempt to prevent Iran from developing a capacity to produce substantial amounts of nuclear weapons-grade fuel in a short amount of time. Simultaneously, he will need to concert an international effort to impose harsher sanctions on Iran if it rejects an outcome the United States and others can accept. The objective is simple to describe but will be difficult to achieve: to generate a suspension of Iran’s enrichment program before it builds the capacity to enrich enough uranium to provide it with this “breakout” capability.

Preventive military action, by either the United States or Israel, in the event that this diplomatic initiative fails, appears unattractive given its risks and costs.However, the option should be examined closely, both for what it could accomplish and given the dangers of living with a near or actual Iranian nuclear weapons capability. Because of Israel’s vulnerability to an Iranian nuclear first strike, its fuse will necessarily be shorter than America’s. And negotiations—as well as stepped-up sanctions— will inevitably take time to work. To increase Israel’s tolerance for a more drawn-out diplomatic engagement, President Obama should bolster Israel’s deterrent capabilities by providing a nuclear guarantee and an enhanced antiballistic missile defense capability.

A second emphasis should be on promoting peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, in particular Syria, which is currently allied with Iran and its Hezbollah and Hamas proxies. The Syrian government is in a position to fulfill a peace agreement, and the differences between the parties appear to be bridgeable. Moreover, the potential for a strategic realignment would benefit the effort to weaken Iran’s influence in the sensitive core of the region, reduce external support for both Hezbollah and Hamas, and improve prospects for stability in Lebanon. In other words, it would give President Obama strategic leverage on Iran at the same time as he would be offering its leaders a constructive way out of their security dilemma.

President Obama should also make a serious effort from the outset to promote progress between Israel and the Palestinians. Here, though, factors related to timing appear contradictory. There is an urgent need for a diplomatic effort to achieve a final peace agreement based on a two-state solution while it is still feasible. Yet deep divisions within the Palestinian leadership (not to mention divisions within Israel’s body politic), and the Palestinian Authority’s questionable ability to control territory from which Israel would withdraw, sharply reduce prospects for a sustainable peace agreement no matter what the outside effort. This dilemma does not argue for neglect, which is sure to be malign, but it does call for a devoted effort to create the conditions on the ground for more ambitious diplomacy to succeed.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/12_middle_east_haass.aspx

[judasdisney]

31. Unlimited false flags = blank cheques forever