Comments from US Reveal a New Middle East
By Ali Rizk
Last year in one of his speeches Hizbullah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah referred to remarks made by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton during an address to AIPAC (the pro-"Israeli" lobby in Washington). I recall him clearly saying "for once we agree with Clinton", words you don't hear often from Hizbullah's leader. Of course Sayyed Nasrallah was pointing out to the warnings Clinton made when she said that demographics and developments in weapons technology (the developments in the weaponry of resistance movements) make the continuation of the status quo for "Israel" and its occupation "unsustainable". This indeed underscored the depth of "Israel" troubles'.
Now we have new comments coming out of the US which convey the exact same message but with much clearer, direct language and more urgency. Recently former US defense secretary Robert Gates was quoted as saying that "Israel's" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was endangering his country by refusing to grapple with "Israel's" growing isolation. On another level New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has described the current "Israeli" government as the most "diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in "Israel's" history" adding that "it has put "Israel" in a very dangerous situation".
These new warnings coming from Uncle Sam highlight the urgency of "Israel's" situation with the emergence of a new factor to add to demography and technology which were mentioned by Clinton last year. This new factor of course is the popular anti "Israeli" sentiments that have come to life in the Arab and Muslim world accompanying the popular revolutions. "Israel" and its supporters initially hoped that the Arab revolutions were merely about issues like better living conditions and more employment opportunities. The big question which was being asked was "what is the political orientation of the youth who have led these revolutions?", "is an anti "Israeli" stance part of their agenda"? Well I think that the latest events in countries like Egypt and Jordan where embassy staff had to flee the popular wrath has answered this beyond any room for doubt. So Gates and Friedman are basically saying that "Israeli" policies in a region where people now have a bigger say are putting "Israel" on the road to destruction.
What's makes this situation even worse for "Israel" is that there is no one there to stop it from conducting its stupid policies. In the US, which is "Israel's" staunchest ally, the American administration will not dare criticize "Israel" or its policies and support for "Israel" will only increase. The democrats recently lost a congressional seat in a New York district where republicans hadn't won since 1920 and one of the reasons cited was Jewish voters disapproval of Obama's stance towards "Israel" (which they viewed as too harsh).
This in turn has led the Obama team to scramble for Jewish support by focusing on "Obama's pro "Israeli" stances" just a year ahead of the US presidential elections. Indeed the Republican party (with the help of AIPAC) has made the extent of support for "Israel" a major factor in these upcoming elections.(I think Friedman also gets it right here, describing the US government "as a hostage to the ineptitude of the "Israeli" leadership because of the powerful pro-"Israel" lobby in an election season.)
All of this leads to a conclusion that a new middle east is unfolding. In this new Middle East "Israel" will be unwelcome and so too will be the US unless serious changes occur in America's Middle East policy. This new Middle East will favor the resistance bloc. In a final sentence I will quote Friedman who cautions that "the "Israeli" government will plunge "Israel" into deeper global isolation and drag America along with it".
Last year in one of his speeches Hizbullah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah referred to remarks made by US secretary of state Hillary Clinton during an address to AIPAC (the pro-"Israeli" lobby in Washington). I recall him clearly saying "for once we agree with Clinton", words you don't hear often from Hizbullah's leader. Of course Sayyed Nasrallah was pointing out to the warnings Clinton made when she said that demographics and developments in weapons technology (the developments in the weaponry of resistance movements) make the continuation of the status quo for "Israel" and its occupation "unsustainable". This indeed underscored the depth of "Israel" troubles'.
Now we have new comments coming out of the US which convey the exact same message but with much clearer, direct language and more urgency. Recently former US defense secretary Robert Gates was quoted as saying that "Israel's" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was endangering his country by refusing to grapple with "Israel's" growing isolation. On another level New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has described the current "Israeli" government as the most "diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in "Israel's" history" adding that "it has put "Israel" in a very dangerous situation".
These new warnings coming from Uncle Sam highlight the urgency of "Israel's" situation with the emergence of a new factor to add to demography and technology which were mentioned by Clinton last year. This new factor of course is the popular anti "Israeli" sentiments that have come to life in the Arab and Muslim world accompanying the popular revolutions. "Israel" and its supporters initially hoped that the Arab revolutions were merely about issues like better living conditions and more employment opportunities. The big question which was being asked was "what is the political orientation of the youth who have led these revolutions?", "is an anti "Israeli" stance part of their agenda"? Well I think that the latest events in countries like Egypt and Jordan where embassy staff had to flee the popular wrath has answered this beyond any room for doubt. So Gates and Friedman are basically saying that "Israeli" policies in a region where people now have a bigger say are putting "Israel" on the road to destruction.
What's makes this situation even worse for "Israel" is that there is no one there to stop it from conducting its stupid policies. In the US, which is "Israel's" staunchest ally, the American administration will not dare criticize "Israel" or its policies and support for "Israel" will only increase. The democrats recently lost a congressional seat in a New York district where republicans hadn't won since 1920 and one of the reasons cited was Jewish voters disapproval of Obama's stance towards "Israel" (which they viewed as too harsh).
This in turn has led the Obama team to scramble for Jewish support by focusing on "Obama's pro "Israeli" stances" just a year ahead of the US presidential elections. Indeed the Republican party (with the help of AIPAC) has made the extent of support for "Israel" a major factor in these upcoming elections.(I think Friedman also gets it right here, describing the US government "as a hostage to the ineptitude of the "Israeli" leadership because of the powerful pro-"Israel" lobby in an election season.)
All of this leads to a conclusion that a new middle east is unfolding. In this new Middle East "Israel" will be unwelcome and so too will be the US unless serious changes occur in America's Middle East policy. This new Middle East will favor the resistance bloc. In a final sentence I will quote Friedman who cautions that "the "Israeli" government will plunge "Israel" into deeper global isolation and drag America along with it".
Comments
