Daniel Levy: US "irresponsibly indulgent" toward Israel
Issandr El AmraniA great passage in this interview of Israeli-British former diplomat Daniel Levy, in America as Obstacle | Souciant:
We need to acknowledge that American domestic politics will not allow the US to lead on this issue in a way that is conducive to advancing a breakthrough. Most people would look at this as being patently obvious, this administration included. US leaders are sufficiently boxed in politically and lack maneuverability to carry the peace process forward. If that is the case, for anyone caring about Israel’s future and the Palestinians, it is worth considering what would get us out of the impasse, whether it is the UN or Quartet playing a more active role.
Now, when you read President Obama’s Libya speech, one might take from it that there would be a logic in the Americans seeing the Israel-Palestine conflict dealt with more by the United Nations than by the US. From the point of view of American strategic interests, one might also draw the conclusion that the US cannot politically carry this burden, that while this conflict is hugely consequential for the United States, it would be better for the US to be a little less in control of it. But that is a counterintuitive notion for any power, certainly for the United States. Leaving this to others gets to the very heart of what the traditional pro-Israel community defines as red lines, precisely because no other entity will treat Israel as favorably as America will. “Favorably,” to the extent of becoming irresponsibly indulgent.
The question for everyone is will a changing Middle East change the equation. Can the US allow such a defining issue as Israel-Palestine to continue to be so mismanaged with such unhelpful consequences to American interests?
Reader Comments (6)
I have no problem in principle with Palestinian Arabs soliciting the UN on a two state proposal.
However relegating Israel to the 1967 borders is a non-starter.
What, you prefer the 1948 borders?
How about some "negotiation" and "compromise" on the part of the Palestinians? That would be different, wouldn't it?
This is my last comment on this blog since my comments are censored here to protect the Zionist establishment. Extremely weak.
Obviously, Mr. El Amrani is afraid to take a real stance against Israeli crimes. I wrote as a reply to the post above and asked: So you think the Palestinians should give up their rights enshrined in international law?
If that is a statement that is to be censored then El Amrani has lost it completely.
Shame on you.
Within the US, it's only the political class that cares about the Israel and Palestine issue because it brings in campaign contributions. The general public could care less if some other party took over brokering a permanent peace.
Tarek, stop being a paranoid delusional, your comment was not censored - either you had a computer error or they did not get through the spam catcher. I see no sign of the latter, so maybe your comment just fell through the tracks.