This interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton deserves close analysis for a reason that neither I nor anyone else noticed before.
“QUESTION: But, I mean, how can [Libya] be worse than what has happened in Syria over the years, where Bashar Asad’s father killed 25,000 people at a lick? I mean, they open fire with live ammunition on these civilians. Why is that different from Libya?
“SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I —
“QUESTION: This [Syria] is a friend of Iran, an enemy of Israel.
“SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if there were a coalition of the international community, if there were the passage of Security Council resolution, if there were a call by the Arab League, if there was a condemnation that was universal – but that is not going to happen, because I don’t think that it’s yet clear what will occur, what will unfold.”
On one hand, what Clinton says is quite logical. It doesn’t make sense for Western countries to send forces to Syria and start bombing. But that’s not the issue. The issue is about supporting the Syrian opposition and really comprehending that Syria is an enemy of America whose regime deserves no quarter.
Yet what does Clinton begin with as the reasons for treating the two differently? Let’s list them:
1. “a coalition of the international community”
2. “passage of Security Council resolution”
3. “call by the Arab League”
4. “a condemnation that was universal”
But, she correctly concludes, “that is not going to happen.”
Now, this is no way for a U.S. secretary of state to speak. What about U.S. interests? What about an independent American decisionmaking process?
Again, these steps might be appropriate for military action–which, again, is not the issue here–but let’s recall, for example, how President George Bush set U.S. policy on Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and then put together an international coalition on the basis of decisions made on the basis of U.S. national interests. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Not the other way around.
Since Syria is an American enemy killing Americans in Iraq and backing terrorist groups to a degree exceeded only by Iran–which is its ally and also an enemy of the United States–why does the U.S. government need an international coalition, UN resolution, Arab League call, and universal condemnation to act?
At any rate, this kind of things certainly does not apply for taking a strong U.S. stance of diplomatic opposition, freezing all the concessions this administration has given to Syria, recalling the U.S. ambassador in protest, building an anti-Syria alliance, blocking Syria’s takeover of Lebanon, working actively to eliminate Syria’s Gaza client, supporting the Syrian opposition and trying to bring down the regime, punishing Syria for its surrogate warfare against the United States in Iraq, and so on.
But instead the kind of thinking this administration all too often represents turns over U.S. power and sovereignty to others.
Every American secretary of state from 1789 onward would be shaken and shocked by such thinking. They would say: No, the United States determines its interests, sets its policy, and implements that policy. Getting international support is an element in that process but it is a byproduct of U.S. interests and decisionmaking; not the other way around.
It is preferable that the United States act multilaterally if possible, but it is not the precondition for action either. Nor should trying to maximize foreign support require too much watering down of the measures taken or–in the case of the Iran sanctions–smoothing passage by giving exemptions to Russia, China, and other countries thus gutting the sanctions.
Similarly, the U.S. government should not become so obsessed with international popularity and multilateralism as to ignore it when countries stab it in the back, as Turkey’s government did on the UN sanctions issue. Nor should it bring situations, as is happening with the unilateral Palestinian independence issue at the UN, in which the United States opposes something as dangerous but doesn’t lobby energetically with other countries on it.
During the Cold War, the United States usually acted with coalitions under president after president. Even the supposedly obsessive unilateralist President George W. Bush put together an international coalition to invade Iraq.
Yet now broad international support has in many cases become the precondition for U.S. action or indeed formulating a U.S. policy at all. In other cases, the U.S. government refuses to take leadership as if such behavior was a demonstration of high virtue. This kind of thing has become so common as to be accepted without anyone even noticing.
Ted my comment to Vinnie disappeared yesterday. I think24 hrs is long enough for you to retrieve and post?
Moses Olitzki,
I don’t know about you, but I’ve been involved in grassroots Israel advocacy here in the U.S. for eight years now. I don’t have any poll data, but a great deal of anecdotal experience, backed up by the testimony of others who’ve been at this at a higher profile and longer than I have (e.g., Yoram Ettinger, among others).
You are fighting the “last war”, Moses, this being the election of ’08. Yes, most Jews here were fooled by Obama, and were very stupid to have allowed this to happen. I was among the 22% who voted against him, I was screaming as loud as I could to anyone who would listen what a disaster he would be, and mostly all I got for my troubles was to be written off as a “paranoid alarmist”.
Today, within my local Jewish community, I am now shown deference like never before. I don’t have to even utter the words “I told you so”…they all know damn well how badly they were suckered by Obama.
There is still a large minority of Jews here who still support Obama. Even ONE is too many. I’d SWAG it at about 40+% for now. But I tell you a historic shift is in the making right now. As a community, the Jews of the U.S. are going to “turn red”, and I don’t mean commie red.
Depending on who the Repubs nominate, as long as it isn’t yet another anti-Semite like Ron Paul or someone perceived by the unfortunate preponderance of snobs among us as a “hick” (e.g, Sarah Palin, whom I adore), I expect Jews to support the Republican candidate at a level of at least 55% or better. That would far and away be the best ANY Republican would have done among Jews since WW2.
The Hollywood types and creeps like Soros do not represent most of us, make no mistake about that. We are increasingly disgusted by such creatures.
I personally would like to see Palin nominated, but then I fear many Jews would stay home or even vote for Obama anyway, but no matter, because with or without the Jews, she’d clobber Obama in a general election. Pretty much anybody would. He’s toast in 2012, one of the very few things I’m pretty sure of nowadays.
I agree with you completely that if Obama did somehow get re-elected, then he’d be gunning for Israel like never before. But he’s not getting back in. This time around, most Jews are not going to be fooled by his superficial campaign season Jewish butt-kissing antics. I know too many who voted for him, and clearly see him for the liar and charlatan that he is, to see this crap working a second time around.
Obama will not try to erradicate Israel until he is reelected. He may well achieve this with the help of the most sutpid and arrogant people on earth — namely most American Jews. Right now he is kissing up to them go get their votes, but after reelection, he will show what he realy is: a vicious anti-Semite, and a weird contraption of a Muslim simphatizer and a Marxist Leninist.
The extreme left and extreme right (that is Muslim fanatcics, and extrememe leftists) work together in a manner reminiscent of the Hitler Stalin pact of 1939. Hitler did not wish to fight the Soviets to the East and England-France to the west, so in mid August 1939, he made a non-aggression pact with Stalin, and two weeks later launched World War II, which, amongst other things, caused the death of 6 million Jews. My parents and two brother were killed during that time. When Hitler saw the poor performance of the red army in figthitng the tiny force of Finland, he launched a war against Stalin. It was then June 22, 1941, and Hitler made immense progress for a while. Only the stupiodity of Hitler and the mnight of the US saved Stalin’s neck.
Now the extreme left , led by Hollywood Jews and George Soros, another Jew, have made common cause with the Moslem terrorists. The worst enemy of Israel is the New York Times, also led by Jews, so many Jews are their own worst enemies, and history is repeating itself.
Moses Olitzki.
Obama will not try to erradicate Israel until he is reelected. He may well achieve this with the helpf of the most sutpid and arrogant peole on this planet — namely American Jews. Right now he is kissing up to them go get their vote, but after reelection, he will show what he realy is: a vicious anti-Semite, and a weird contraption of Moselm simphatizer and red.
Note that the extreme left and extreme right (that is moslem fanatcics, and extrememe leftists) work together in a manner reminiscent of the Hitler Stalin pact of 1939. Hitler did not wish to fight the Soviets to the East and England -France on the west, so in mid August 1939, he made a non-paggression pact with Stalin, and two weeks later launched Wrold War II, which, amongst other things, caused the death of 6 million Jews. My parents and two brother were killed in it. When Hitler saw the poor [performance of the red army in figthgitng the tiny force of Finland, he decided to hit Stalin, and on June 22, 1941 launched is atttack against the Soviets. Only the stupiodity of Hitler nad the mnight of the US saved Stalin’s neck.
Now the extreme left , led by Hollywood Jews and George Soros, another Jew, have made common cause with the Moslem terrorists. The worst enemy of Israel is the New York Times, also led by Jews, so many Jews are their own worst enemies, and history is repeating itself.
Moses Olitzki.
Jerry, Bland Oatmeal:
…Except that Israel ain’t Libya, in terms of military capabilities (and most other parameters besides).
No Western leader seriously contemplates throwing their armed forces at Israel. I can’t believe they are that stupid, and if they are, there will be hell to pay.
Instead, what I see is what I’ve called before “the Rhodesia treatment”. In the late 1970s, the white minority government of Rhodesia – despite having a strong economy and a strong military by local standards – was brought down through a BDS movement with virtually unanimous Western support. No one had to bomb them. They were simply strangled politically and economically.
An attempt of this nature is the worst I can see things getting, perhaps combined with military action on the part of Israel’s Arab neighbors – some backed by Iran and/or Turkey – to take advantage of Israel’s isolation.
That is a nightmare scenario. And if it comes to pass, Israel can make things pretty nightmarish for those who are attacking her, particularly if she is cornered with “nothing to lose”.
Real world, I don’t see sanctions as being any more than partial and symbolic in nature, if it comes to that. Israel is heavily integrated into the world economy – e.g., their pharmaceutical firms are among the world’s largest, their telecom industry is very big (much of the world’s remote voicemail service is physically located in Israel) – so it isn’t so easy to isolate them.
If Obama participates in such an effort, he can kiss re-election good-bye. I don’t think he’s got the guts for this, but admittedly his antipathy for Israel is the most consistent aspect of his foreign policy agenda, so I could be wrong about that.
Israel is in for a tough time. But as tough as others make it on her, she can make it tough on them, too, if her leaders choose to.
Anyway, another 22 months, and this picture should change pretty dramatically (unless Ron Paul gets in).
BlandOatmeal says:
April 24, 2011 at 6:45 pm
“SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, if there were a coalition of the international community, if there were the passage of Security Council resolution, if there were a call by the Arab League, if there was a condemnation that was universal – but that is not going to happen, because I don’t think that it’s yet clear what will occur, what will unfold.”
Certainly. When all these wonderful people decide it’s time to bomb Israel because Israel won’t accept Arab demands I guess the USA will join them.
please note that the conditions she listed apply or will soon apply to Israel. There are those that say that the responsibility to protect doctrine is being used in Libya as a precedent for Israel by the Obama regime. Certainly it is well known that Samantha Powers is an avid enemy of Israel as are most of Obamas associates and friends.
I believe we’ve discovered the root of Obama’s (and Clinton’s) foreign policy.