[Peace-discuss] "Little difference" between Obama, Bush in substance

[C. G. Estabrook]

[If it weren't murderous, it would be funny -- the White House rushing to cover 
another vacuity by Joe Biden, working in the great vice-presidential tradition 
of Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew, and Adlai E. Stevenson (Grover Cleveland's VP, 
described as "windy but amusing"). One can only pity the agony of the White 
House wordsmith who had to cover Biden's inconsistencies with the explanation, 
"Any tonal difference is not intentional at all"!  I surely wouldn't listen for 
"tonal differences" from Biden to descry the administration's Mideast policy. 
Except that it's clear that it's murderous...  --CGE]

	No change in Iran policy, White House insists
	Mon, 07/06/2009 - 6:48pm

As White House and Office of the Vice President aides formed a united front 
against widespread media speculation about a change in policy signaled by Vice 
President Joseph Biden's statement on a Sunday news show that Israel is a 
"sovereign nation" that could "determine for itself" how to deal with threats 
from Iran, analysts said that Israel may be wary of any such green light in any 
case.

In e-mails and phone calls today, administration officials insisted that Biden's 
comments were neither a signal of any change in policy, nor any sort of 
freelancing. Asked if Biden's remarks might have been part of an intentional 
messaging campaign to step up pressure on Iran to negotiate over its nuclear 
program, officials gave an emphatic "no." But for all that, the remarks were 
widely seen both in Washington and abroad as a message intended less for 
Jerusalem than for Tehran.

Israel's "biggest nightmare" is that one day the U.S. government "‘would call it 
and say 'OK guys, take care of it,'" said Tel Aviv University Iran expert David 
Menashri in a call Monday arranged by the Israeli Policy Forum, a U.S. nonprofit 
organization that supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin 
Netanyahu was right to give Obama until the end of the year to see if engagement 
with Iran was succeeding before taking matters into his own hands, Biden said, 
"Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in 
their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else." 
Repeated follow-up questions from Stephanopoulos elicited similar responses.

"Some in the [Israeli] media are portraying [Biden's comments] as a 180-degree 
switch and as an indication that the administration is beginning to realize that 
'engagement' may not work," said former Israeli Consul General to the United 
Nations Alon Pinkas. "That it is absolutely NOT a change, and if anything, it 
should be interpreted as a bad sign rather than a positive encouragement."

Biden's message "is the absolute worst-case scenario from Israel's 
policy-planning perspective," Pinkas elaborated. "'We will not prevent' means 
the U.S. will neither support nor encourage [Israeli attacks on Iran] or in 
other words, 'Do what you think is appropriate, but bear the consequences.'"

Although Israeli officials have expressed unending skepticism about the Obama 
administration's intentions to try to engage with Iran, and are often seen as 
chafing against Washington, Israel has conducted an intensive campaign over the 
past several years to make Iran's nuclear program an international rather than 
just an Israeli problem.

The reason, explains Georgetown University's Daniel Byman, is that Israel 
doesn't want to take on Iran by itself. "Militarily, this is a difficult 
operation," Byman said Monday, noting that Iran's nuclear program is widely 
dispersed, compared with Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, which Israel struck in 
1981. "This is much farther geographically, and that means planes can't loiter 
as long. They would [presumably] be flying over air space [in Iraq] controlled 
by the United States. You have to put together a strike package that's much more 
difficult. It also requires superb intelligence that may be lacking."

"There was no intention to change the position, and nothing the vice president 
said in any way indicates a change in U.S. position," said a White House 
official of Biden's remarks Sunday. "What he said and what [chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael] Mullen said taken together reflect our 
position: Israel is a sovereign nation, Israel is an ally and Israel has a right 
to defend itself and other countries cannot dictate how it defends itself. That 
being said, it would not be helpful if Israel were to act against Iran." Any 
interpretation that Biden's remarks signaled a change in U.S. policy is "spin," 
he added.

Biden did, however, strike a different tone when answering a similar question 
back on April 7. Asked if he were concerned that Netanyahu might strike Iranian 
nuclear facilities, Biden told CNN: "I don't believe Prime Minister Netanyahu 
would do that. I think he would be ill advised to do that."

How to account for the seeming discrepancy? "Any tonal difference is not 
intentional at all," the White House official said.

Did Biden coordinate with the White House to pressure Iran to respond to the 
still-outstanding offer of talks with Washington? Again, the answer from the 
White House was no...

Full article at
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/06/no_change_in_iran_policy_white_house_insists


C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> [Vice President Joe Biden said today in his best tough-guy style, "Look, 
> Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their
> interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."  Now
> it's hard ever to take Biden seriously, but he may be here indicating that
> Israel has received its (non-)marching orders in no uncertain terms, so US
> flacks are free to reflect piously on Israel's "sovereignty."  More worrisome
> is the possibility that the Obama administration -- more brutal and
> aggressive in AfPak than the Bush administration was -- is taking off the
> constraints the Bush administration put on Israel in regard to Iran.  More
> evidence that the Obama administrations is as duplicitous as the Bush
> administration, if even more murderous, comes from Honduras, where the world
> recognizes that the Obama administration approved of the coup, despite its 
> protestations.  --CGE]
> 
> 
> "Little difference" between Obama, Bush in substance Noam Chomsky interviewed
> by Richard Hall The Daily Star, June 24, 2009
> 
> Q: Do you see any difference between the policies of former US President 
> George W. Bush and his successor Barack Obama regarding the
> Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
> 
> A: In substance, there is little difference. Obama has reiterated Bush's 
> positions, in virtually the same words. Like Bush, he has called for a 
> "Palestinian state," and like Bush, he leaves what he means entirely vague.
> It can easily be interpreted to be the same as Netanyahu's position in 1996,
> when he became the first Israeli prime minister to countenance the 
> establishment of a Palestinian state, a fact that seems to be forgotten.
> Shimon Peres had just left office declaring forcefully that there would never
> be a Palestinian state. Netanyahu's information minister, when asked whether
> he would adopt the same policy, answered that if Palestinians wanted to call
> the fragments left to them "a state," that was fine: Or they could call them
> "fried chicken." We do not know whether Obama means "fried chicken." We do
> know that he very carefully evaded the core of the Arab Peace Initiative that
> he praised.
> 
> He called on the Arab states to proceed to normalize relations with Israel.
> But he scrupulously omitted the fact, which he surely knew, that this step
> was conditional on acceptance of the long-standing international consensus on
> a two-state settlement that the US and Israel have blocked for 35 years, with
> rare and temporary departures from this stern rejectionism -- not just in 
> words, but more importantly in deeds. On settlements, Obama avoided any
> mention of existing settlements, and repeated the words of the "road map" on
> expanding settlements. He also made it clear he would not follow the
> precedent of George Bush senior, and impose a slight penalty on Israeli
> expansion of settlements. Rather, he said, his steps would be only
> "symbolic."
> 
> Q: Do Obama's recent overtures to the Muslim world signify a different US 
> approach to the Middle East?
> 
> A: The rhetoric is different. On substance, there is little that is new. 
> Obama has cultivated a style of presenting himself as engaging and friendly,
>  and as a blank slate, on which his audience can write their hopes and
> wishes, believing, if they choose, that he is "on our side." The same is true
> on the domestic scene.
> 
> Q: Does Israel's refusal to halt settlements risk damaging relations between
> it and the US?
> 
> A: There is always a risk, and as I mentioned, for a brief period under Bush 
> senior, Washington imposed a slight penalty. What will happen now, we cannot
> be sure. Israel has just exploited the focus of attention on Iran to announce
>  substantial settlement expansion, so far eliciting no response in 
> Washington. And it may be noted that Obama is implementing an increase in
> military aid to Israel for an unprecedented 10 years into the future. Also of
>  significance is the rapid expansion of US hi-tech investment in Israel,
> notably a huge Intel plant intended to carry out a revolution in chip
> manufacture. There is, typically, a close relation between government and
> corporate policy, for obvious reasons, and there are other close ties,
> particularly military and intelligence, that are well-known and stable.
> 
> Q: How will the decision taken by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to form
> a government without Hamas affect the peace process?
> 
> A: Whether one likes it or not, Hamas won a free election in January 2006. 
> Israel and the US (with the EU tailing behind politely) reacted instantly by 
> harsh punishment of the population for this transgression. Those familiar
> with modern history should have been aware that there is nothing at all 
> surprising about this reaction, or about the unwillingness of the
> intellectual classes to face what it indicates about the fashionable concept
> "democracy promotion." Later Israel imprisoned much of the elected
> government. Israel and the US then instigated a Fatah military coup to
> overturn the government. When this failed, punishment of the population
> became more severe. Meanwhile US-backed Israeli programs are crushing Gazans
> and expanding Israeli control over the West Bank. The US and Israel,
> meanwhile, continue to reject the long-standing consensus on a two-state
> settlement. What exactly do we mean by the phrase "peace process" under these
> circumstances?
> 
> Q: The right of return for Palestinian refugees has been a barrier to 
> previous peace negotiations. Do you think it will be again?
> 
> A: Not really. It is useful to consider the one break in US-Israeli 
> rejectionism: January 2001, Bill Clinton's final month in office. By late
> 2000, Clinton realized that his proposals at the failed Camp David conference
>  could not be accepted by any Palestinians. In December, he proposed his 
> "parameters": imprecise, but more forthcoming. He then announced that both
> sides had accepted the parameters, and both had reservations. Israeli and
> Palestinian negotiators met in Taba to deal with their differences, and came
> very close to a final settlement, more or less in line with the international
> consensus. In their final news conference, they reported that with a few more
> days, they might reach a complete agreement, but Israel called off the
> negotiations prematurely, and they never continued formally -- informal talks
> led to the Geneva Accord of December 2003. There is extensive evidence
> available in Hebrew and English sources. The Taba negotiations and the Geneva
> Accord reached essentially the same formula: Israel should recognize the
> right of return, but Palestinians should recognize that it will not be
> implemented within Israel except in small numbers, and refugees would have to
> be absorbed in the Palestinian state or elsewhere. One may argue that that
> outcome is unjust, but in the real world, it is the most that can be
> attained. To dangle vain hopes before the eyes of miserable refugees is
> hardly a moral stance, in my opinion.
> 
> Q: Is an attack by Israel on Iran a likely scenario?
> 
> A: No one knows. The Bush administration made it quite clear that it opposed
> an attack. During the 2008 presidential campaign -- the most sensitive period
> in domestic politics -- the Israel lobby pressured Congress to pass a 
> resolution that amounted to a blockade against Iran, an act of war. They had
> lined up many supporters, but the effort suddenly ended, presumably because
> the Bush White House indicated it was opposed. I presume Obama is continuing
> this policy. It is I suppose technically possible for Israel to attack Iran,
> possibly using submarines armed with nuclear missiles. The consequences could
> be very severe, in many domains. We might also recall that Israel's attack on
> the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 initiated Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weapons
> program. That was reasonably clear from physical inspection at once, later
> confirmed by defectors, and more recently by high-level US intelligence.
> 
> http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20090624.htm 
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list 
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss