The rift is all about the U.S. State Department’s desire to reassert control.
David Wurmser | JNS | May 9, 2024
The chattering class in Israel is struggling to understand American behavior. They ask: How did the United States go from supporting Israel in the first days of the war with Hamas in Gaza to essentially shielding the terror organization? The Israeli right asks: What happened to the Americans? The left asks: What has Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu done to destroy U.S.-Israel relations?
I believe I have some insight into this. I held a senior policy position at the U.S. State Department for several years. Afterwards, I was a senior advisor to the vice president from 2001 to 2007 and then to the Trump administration’s National Security Advisor John Bolton. I also served a decade in the Pentagon as a senior intelligence officer. I have learned a great deal about the mentality of these bureaucracies.
It is important to understand that the U.S. State Department is not a foreign ministry. It is a super-bureaucracy with domestic as well as foreign functions. Its power over foreign policy far outstrips that of other countries’ foreign ministries.
The Biden administration’s National Security Council is ultimately a political body, but it is not opposed to State Department policy, which is increasingly pushed by younger staffers and senior figures aligned with progressive ideology. There are also the professional foreign service officers who have invested their entire careers advancing foreign policy paradigms that are now collapsing.
The NSC lacks a vast bureaucracy of its own. So, it outsources the drafting of policy to relevant bureaus. On foreign policy, this is almost always the State Department. As in any large organization, the person tasked with drafting the policy defines the policy. Everything that follows is a reactive revision, not a reset.
Intelligence agencies control and distribute information, including the information made available to the president. Thus, they also exercise significant power. But ever since the tenure of George Tenet as CIA director, the intelligence agencies have become active in the implementation of policy as well.
This is problematic because if intelligence chiefs are shaping policy, the objectivity of the information and analysis provided by their bureaucracy is called into question. How objective can the bureaucracy be when administration policy contradicts that on which the intelligence chief has staked his reputation?
Currently, Bill Burns serves as CIA director. He is a career foreign service officer who embodies the outlook and operational methods of the State Department. Since the Department of Defense under this administration, unlike past administrations, is weak in terms of policy formation, the CIA’s functioning and culture are not fundamentally different from those of the State Department.
So, what is this culture? It is well known that the State Department is more “Arabist” than pro-Israel. But over the last several decades, State Department officials’ real motivation has been to exercise control. Proud, powerful nations like Japan and India often complain about this, as do many other countries.
The State Department’s desire for control is not very ideological. It is largely based on two factors.
First, the U.S. foreign service has looked up to the British Foreign Office, which traditionally put a premium on maintaining control over the British Empire, for over a century. Second, the Cold War and the U.S.’s global policy of containment demanded alliance discipline.
Thus, all State Department polices offer a “grand bargain” to U.S. allies: Surrender some or most of your defense sovereignty and freedom of maneuver in exchange for U.S. protection. The promise of superpower backing is difficult for any nation to dismiss. So, the “grand bargain” became the hegemonic modus operandi for the State Department’s relationships with U.S. allies.
How does this explain the U.S. shift from overwhelmingly friendly to Israel in the aftermath of Oct. 7 to overtly hostile?
To a State Department official, losing control over U.S. foreign policy and the policies of foreign governments is the most unnerving prospect imaginable. A State Department officer will often seek to maintain or reassert control by championing a policy or nation he himself does not like so that control, usually through drafting the resulting policy, falls to him.
I myself saw this in action. Whenever the NSC’s Principals Committee—composed of the relevant cabinet-level officials minus the president—displayed a strong policy preference, State Department officials would rapidly adopt policies they abhorred in order to be tasked with drafting the policy. They could then slowly manipulate the policy back to their preferred position.
For example, in a 2003 Rose Garden speech, President George W. Bush clearly stated that the United States could not deal with any Palestinian leadership tainted by terror or corruption. By 2004 to 2005, this had become the “Roadmap for Peace,” a plan to build a Palestinian state around the corrupt PLO and Mahmoud Abbas.
Bruce Reidel, the NSC’s senior director for the Middle East, had given the task of drafting this policy to none other than Bill Burns, who was then the assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, and his team. I saw this same phenomenon take place on Iran policy in 2003 to 2004, though I cannot write about this in detail because it remains classified.
So what happened regarding Israel?
Basically, the consensus in Israel that the U.S. government was emotionally, materially and, most importantly, conceptually on Israel’s side after Oct. 7 is wrong. In fact, the Biden administration never abandoned any of its Oct. 6 delusions. Quite the opposite: It saw the possibility that Israel would demolish the paradigms on which U.S. policy’s house of cards is built as a major threat. The administration was terrified that Israel would take actions that demolish the “two-state solution” paradigm that involves a PLO-run Palestinian state. It also feared that potential Israeli escalation against Hezbollah and then the Houthis would threaten the paradigm that holds that the United States must reach a regional strategic condominium with Iran.
At the same time, the Biden administration understood that Israel had been deeply wounded and thus was likely to lash out, preempt and act decisively and uncontrollably. As a result, the administration’s immediate policy imperative became how to re-establish control over Israel’s actions. True to State Department tradition, it decided to co-opt Israel—to act more pro-Israel than Israel. This was intended to win confidence and establish influence over Israeli actions, and then, over time, slowly bend Israel back into the paradigm.
A reasonable argument can be made that President Joe Biden himself acted out of friendship. In fact, he probably did. But those of us living in Washington have seen for years that conclusions cannot be drawn from any presidential statement under this administration until one sees how the State Department and NSC spokesmen clarify it as real policy. Often, they do so in direct contradiction to what the president said.
Indeed, White House Spokesperson Jen Psaki once famously said that one should wait for the administration’s spokesperson to tell you what official policy is rather than rely on what the president says. In other words, Biden is not the prime shaper of operational policy.
Unfortunately, Israelis—both left and right—never appreciated that the administration’s initial embrace was never genuine. It was designed to place a warm blanket over Israel so it would calm down, pause and return to controllable strategic dependency.
@Adam
@Peloni
Tenks.
@Sebastien
I wish to add my support to Adam’s praise for your extensive contributions on this site. The details and subjects you raise spark many interesting conversations and some useful levity.
Sebastien, I retract all my previous criticism of you. They were petty and mean-spirited. I would blame it on my various illnesses. But that excuse is beginning to wear thin.
Please continue your excellent work in keeping us informed about what is happening in America, Israel and elsewhere. Please totally ignore the occasional outburst of “spleen” by me, Best wishes, Adam,
This article definitely reveals who and what Finer is. Thanks for locating it and reprinting it for us.
Still, I don’t think you fully understand why your initial reference to finer bothered me. You wrote “Jonathan Finer is an anti-Zionist Jew” without giving any indication as to why you were mentioning him, why you thought he was important, or why you were mentioning him in this comment space. That was unnecessarily confusing to your readers, including me. My guess, I still don’t know, is that you were replying to someone’s query on your “X” or Facebook space. But if my hunch is right, it should have occurred to you that Israpundit is not, after all you r”X” or Facebook page.
Your comments on numerous articles in Israpundit have provided us with a wealth of important information about the Israel-Gaza-USG situation that is not readily available in the MSM. I deeply appreciate your contributions to Israpundit. But please edit your comments a little more closely to avoid confusing comments.
I’m reminded of the parody of the Andrews Sisters’ “Down to Carolina, nothing could be finah” I came up with some years ago: “Kitty litter linah nothing could be finah”
@Felix, Adam Felix, here’s the other John Kerry Spoof from the Yesha Council in 2014. Again, just the transcript. Adam, Biner was his chief of staff and director of policy planning.
“John Kerry Replaces Israelis’ Toilet Paper with Porcupines
In a funny new ad produced by the settlers’ lobby group
BY
LIEL LEIBOVITZ
JANUARY 07, 2014”
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/john-kerry-replaces-israelis-toilet-paper-with-porcupines
@ Adam Well, I got a pro-Israel Facebook reel (video) which said that Bitar and Finer were the 2 main culprits in Biden’s anti-Israel policy making. When I looked up Bitar, it was all there. But, I didn’t find anything more specific about Finer, myself, either.
nix that.
Googled: Jonathan Biner anti-Israel and this article came up
“In Private Remarks to Arab Americans, Biden Aide Expresses Regrets on Gaza
In a closed-door meeting, the aide offered some of the administration’s clearest notes of contrition for its response to the Gaza war, a sign of rising Democratic pressure on President Biden.”
“…In a closed-door meeting with Arab American leaders in Michigan this week, one of President Biden’s top foreign policy aides acknowledged mistakes in the administration’s response to the war in Gaza, saying he did not have “any confidence” that Israel’s government was willing to take “meaningful steps” toward Palestinian statehood…
‘…The Biden aide, Jon Finer, a deputy national security adviser, offered some of the administration’s clearest expressions of regret for what he called “missteps” it had made from the beginning of the violence, and he pledged that it would do better.
During the meeting on Thursday with Arab American political leaders in Dearborn, Mich., Mr. Finer said, “We are very well aware that we have missteps in the course of responding to this crisis since Oct. 7,” according to a recording of the gathering obtained by The New York Times. A National Security Council official confirmed the recording was authentic.
Mr. Finer added: “We have left a very damaging impression based on what has been a wholly inadequate public accounting for how much the president, the administration and the country values the lives of Palestinians. And that began, frankly, pretty early in the conflict…’
‘…Mr. Finer and several other senior Biden administration officials, including Samantha Power, the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, traveled to Dearborn on Thursday for a series of meetings, including the one in which Mr. Finer’s comments were recorded…’
‘During the Thursday meetings, Mr. Finer articulated the American government’s efforts to bring a halt to the war in Gaza. Building a formal diplomatic relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia, he said, is a critical step toward creating a Palestinian state. Doing so, he added, requires politically difficult sacrifices from both countries and the United States…’
‘…“We will have to do things for Saudi Arabia that will be very unpopular in this country and in our Congress,” Mr. Finer said. “Will Israel be willing to do the hard thing that’s going to be required of them, which is meaningful steps for the Palestinians on the question of two states? I don’t know if the answer to that is yes. I do not have any confidence in this current government of Israel.”
Mr. Finer also said the Biden administration should have been faster to publicly condemn statements made by some Israeli officials that, in his words, compared “residents of Gaza to animals.” He said officials had not done so because they were trying to work with the Israeli government…’
‘…“Out of a desire to sort of focus on solving the problem and not engaging in a rhetorical back-and-forth with people who, in many cases, I think we all find somewhat abhorrent, we did not sufficiently indicate that we totally rejected and disagreed with those sorts of sentiments,” Mr. Finer said.
He did not clarify which Israeli officials he was referring to, but in the conflict’s early days, Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defense minister, said, “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.” Some other Israeli officials have also faced criticism for dehumanizing language…’
‘…Mr. Finer’s most explicit note of contrition was for a statement released under Mr. Biden’s name on Jan. 14, marking 100 days since the conflict began. The statement focused on the plight of American and Israeli hostages being held in Gaza and made no reference to Palestinians who had been killed.
“It did not in any way address the loss of Palestinian life during the course of the first 100 days of the conflict,” Mr. Finer said. “There is no excuse for that. It should not have happened. I believe it will not happen again. But we know that there was a lot of damage done.”
Mr. Finer, who declined to comment, is the second-ranking official on the National Security Council, under Jake Sullivan, who is Mr. Biden’s national security adviser.
Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said: “The president and Mr. Finer were reflecting on concerns we have had for some time, and will continue to have as the Israeli operation proceeds, about the loss of Palestinian lives in this conflict and the need to reduce civilian harm.”
..
The Michiganders who attended the Thursday meetings with Biden administration officials described them as intense and said they were disappointed that the delegation from Washington had not committed to policy changes…”
part of much longer article, I quoted in case you don’t want to hassle with the register for so many free articles or subscribe jazz. I just quoted the passages that mention him. You can see he is pro-Pal, anti-Israel, and very powerful.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/09/us/politics/biden-aide-israel-regret.html
and
“…He is Jewish…Finer is deputy national security advisor under national security advisor Jake Sullivan, in the Biden administration.[1]…”
“He previously served as the chief of staff and director of policy planning for former Secretary of State John Kerry at the U.S. Department of State.[2][3]”
Has more in article.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Finer
There. I think I substantiated it for you. Happy, now? It’s always too much or too little for you guys. I can’t win, can I?
“I get no respect.” – Rodney Dangerfield (another misunderstood meshugene Hungarian-Jewish-American)
https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2017/how-jacob-cohen-became-rodney-dangerfield-and-got-himself-some-respect
Sebastien, who is this Jonathan Finer ? Why do you bring him up in connection with the Wurmser article and your disclosures about Bitar? What is his enokoyment hitory prior to his present position? How long has he been serving in government? What were his jobs and education before he entered government service> Having brough up his name, I think you should tell us more about him.
Sebastiwn;s ;atest revelations about this guy Bitar, with a history of working as a mouthpiece for Palestinian terrorists working for UNWRA, and a pro-Palestine activist going back at least to his college days, is the “Deputy Assistant to the President for intelligence and defense policy,” and having previously served in many high high positions concerned with intelligence and Middle East policy under both the Obama and Biden administrations, is truly shocking. I have known all along that the Biden Israel was anti-Israel, but I had never dreamed that individuals who longstanding mouthpieces for the Palinian terrorist organizations held extremly sensitive and powerful positions in the USG. What’s next? John Gotti’s lawyer Bruce Cutler as head of the anti organized crime task force?Or the Boston Strangler as head of the task force on preventing violence against women?
Jonathan Finer Deputy National Security Advisor of the United States, an anti-Zionist Jew.
Brilliant analysis supported by relevant historical material and the author’s personal experience in government.