While it is true that the United States has embraced the goal of a two-state solution while newly-elected Netanyahu has not, and while that will likely result in a certain amount of tension, I hardly think it represents a radical fissure in the relationship between the two allies. In fact, the cynic in me thinks perhaps the talk of growing tensions is a political ploy to make it seem like there is more of a change in vision with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, than perhaps there actually is. Thus far, however, any real change, including a more even-handed approach to the conflict, has not been evident.

During Hillary’s recent trip to the West Bank, we saw the usual demands for concessions on the part of the Palestinians with nothing asked of the Israelis. The US has never questioned Israel’s use of white phosphorous in highly populated Gaza, or anything else for that matter. When allegations of horrible human rights abuses surfaced after the recent assault on Gaza, the US remained eerily silent and seems content to be assured by the Israeli military that nothing untoward occurred anyone who suggests otherwise, is simply an anti-Semitic hater of Israel. In fact, it would seem that there is nothing Israel could possibly do to raise the ire of the US. Never mind this stunning act of diplomatic chutzpah from the Israeli government when Secretary Clinton met with Netanyahu:

Sources tell Foreign Policy that when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Netanyahu at the King David Hotel earlier this month, such was the concern that a certain former Mossad analyst who now serves as Netanyahu’s security advisor may pose a counterintelligence problem that, after conferring with an aide, Clinton suggested to Netanyahu that they reduce the number of people in the room.

The former analyst, Uzi Arad, has recently headed an Israeli think tank that convenes the influential annual Herzliya strategy dialogue. Arad has been unable to get a U.S. visa for the past two years, he has suggested, because he was identified in a 2005 indictment (though not by name) as one of the Israelis who met with then-Pentagon Iran specialist Larry Franklin. Franklin pled guilty in 2005 on charges related to unauthorized disclosure of national-security information to people not authorized to receive it, including officials with the Israeli government.

Clinton’s suggestion was made, sources say, in the hopes that Netanyahu would get the message and excuse Arad from the meeting. What happened instead, sources report, was that Netanyahu dismissed from the meeting Israeli ambassador to Washington Sallai Meridor, who has since announced his resignation. (An account of the meeting previously published on ForeignPolicy.com revealed that Clinton seemed remarkably constrained and tight-lipped during it.)

If you don’t recall who Uzi Arad is, that is probably because it wasn’t plastered all over the news. Here’s a little summary of his resume:

Arad, a long-time member of the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, was also mixed up in the spy scandal that involved two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committe, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, and a Pentagon official, Larry Franklin. (Rosen, who was charged with leaking classified information in the scandal, is the blogger who led the onslaught that killed the appointment of Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council.) The center of that scandal involving Franklin’s alleged passing of secret US plans about Iran to officials from AIPAC and the Israeli embassy.

But don’t worry, no biggie. Why let a little bit of spying and treason get in the way of our relationship with Israel! In fact, Uzi Arad has said that he fully expects the State Dept. under Hillary Clinton will issue him a Visa if he chooses to travel to the US. And why not? After all, it is Israel.

Most recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu has elevated anti-Arab racist, Avigdor Lieberman, to Foreign Minister. Great. As Professor Juan Cole points out, while the US and most reasonable nations understandably react negatively to the President of Iran’s inflammatory, hateful rhetoric about Israel, those very same reasonable nations say not a word when confronted with the reality of Lieberman as Foreign Minister, despite the fact that that both he and Netanyahu are now, alongside Hamas’ continued rocket fire into Israel, the major obstacles to stability in the region.

And to get an idea of just how radically hateful Lieberman is and just how shocking it is that the US and other nations have remained so silent about his new position alongside Netanyahu, take a look at some of Avigdor Lieberman’s greatest hits:

# In 1998, Lieberman called for the flooding of Egypt by bombing the Aswan Dam in retaliation for Egyptian support for Yasser Arafat.

# In 2001, as Minister of National Infrastructure, Lieberman proposed that the West Bank be divided into four cantons, with no central Palestinian government and no possibility for Palestinians to travel between the cantons.

# In 2002, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting saying that the Palestinians should be given an ultimatum that “At 8am we’ll bomb all the commercial centers … at noon we’ll bomb their gas stations … at two we’ll bomb their banks …”

# In 2003, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.

# In May 2004, Lieberman proposed a plan that called for the transfer of Israeli territory with Palestinian populations to the Palestinian Authority. Likewise, Israel would annex the major Jewish settlement blocs on the Palestinian West Bank. If applied, his plan would strip roughly one-third of Israel’s Palestinian citizens of their citizenship. A “loyalty test” would be applied to those who desired to remain in Israel. This plan to trade territory with the Palestinian Authority is a revision of Lieberman’s earlier calls for the forcible transfer of Palestinian citizens of Israel from their land. Lieberman stated in April 2002 that there was “nothing undemocratic about transfer.”

# Also in May 2004, he said that 90 percent of Israel’s 1.2 million Palestinian citizens would “have to find a new Arab entity” in which to live beyond Israel’s borders. “They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost,” he said.

# In May 2006, Lieberman called for the killing of Arab members of Knesset who meet with members of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

Oh, yeah, and then the other day he declared the US-sponsored Annapolis peace plan officially dead, which was news to just about, oh, everyone. Reaction from the United States at hearing that? *chirp*, *chirp*.

Do you hear crickets? Well, they are Israel.

The irony in all of this is that now more than perhaps at any other time, Israel is demonstrating that it’s national interests may be in direct conflict with US security interests and if that is the case, will the Obama administration have the spine to stand up to Israel? Israel is rejecting a two-state solution, publicly trying to sabotage US efforts to open a dialogue with Iran and essentially treating the new administration as if they exist to do little other than to carry water for Israel- none of this is acceptable.

One question is whether US politicians and the mainstream media will even allow such a frank, open discussion about Israel’s new government and its rejection of US policy, to occur, given that discussing Israel in anything other than the most flattering terms has become the ‘third rail’ of American politics? Are we as a nation strong enough and confident enough to discuss all of this without resorting to nonsense claims of either being pro-terrorist or anti-semitic? Thus far I am not encouraged, but promoting stability and peace in the Mid-East will be central to securing our safety here at home- that much is clear.

UPDATE: I came across an interesting article about changing the US approach to mid-east peace out of necessity. This will admittedly be difficult as people have strong opinions about this issue and many have become mired in a rigid view of the parties involved and they tend to see any perceived shift in policy as threatening. That said, it is a good sign that the dialogue is opening up and there seems to be more tolerance for differing opinions and strategies for moving forward.

NYT columnist Roger Cohen wrote a commentary which has generated quite a bit of buzz in the blogosphere.

Talking Points Memo summarizes what is notable about the Cohen piece:

But Cohen is in the Times and he reports on an amazing shift among some of the biggest foreign policy thinkers (and doers) in the United States on the subject of Hamas. He writes about a letter organized by the US/Middle East project in which Brent Scowcroft, Thomas Pickering, Chuck Hagel, Paul Volcker, Lee Hamilton, James Wolfensohn, Carla Hills, Nancy Kassebaum, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Ted Sorensen urge that we recognize reality and start dealing, in some form, with Hamas. Henry Siegman from the US/Mideast Project and long time Jewish community leader quarterbacked the effort.

As Andrew Sullivan writes today, the “realist” school is gaining strength. How long can Israel survive through war with Palestinians, threatening war with Iran and, today’s latest, bombing Sudan (during the January war to intercept weapons supposedly headed to Gaza).

As Cohen puts it, it is time to “stop being hung up on prior Hamas recognition of Israel and watch what it does rather than what it says. If Hamas is part of, and remains part of, a Palestinian unity government that makes a peace deal with Israel, that’s workable…”

What I am interested in is whether other mainstream media outlets are going to be as open to this new dialogue over the coming weeks. Props to the NYT for veering a bit off their usual hawkish take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- hopefully others will follow suit.

When Secretary Clinton went on her first overseas trip to Asia, she managed to appease a nervous Chinese Government by declaring that China’s worsening human rights, rigid communism and toxic exports (literally) would not get in the way of what Clinton presaged would be a beautiful future together. And now, South Africa has bent over and grabbed it’s ankles to appease China by, get this, denying a VISA to the Dalai Lama, who was slated to attend an international peace conference:

South Africa has refused the Dalai Lama a visa to attend an international peace conference in Johannesburg this week, a presidential spokesman said.

The Tibetan spiritual leader and Nobel Laureate did not receive a visa because it was not in South Africa’s interest for him to attend, said Thabo Masebe.

South Africa thinks that, if the Dalai Lama attended the conference, the focus would shift away from the 2010 World Cup — the global soccer championship it will host next year.
“We cannot allow focus to shift to China and Tibet,” Masebe said, adding that South Africa has gained much from its trading relationship with China.

[snip]

A representative of the Dalai Lama said he was not surprised by the decision. The Tibetan government in exile thinks that China has pressured many countries to refuse a visit by the Dalai Lama, according to Chhime Chhoekyapa, an aide in Dharamsala, India.

To the credit of former South African President, F.W. De Klerk and Archbishop Desmund Tutu, they are boycotting the conference and hopefully others will too. The question is, how many other countries will buckle to China’s thuggish tactics?

UPDATE: Maybe China’s latest economic posturing will give the the administration (and in particular, the State Dept.) cause to question China’s intentions with respect to the US.

UPDATE II: The website Foreign Policy has a good column discussing how South Africa may be shooting itself in the foot by slamming the door in the face of the Dalai Lama.

Of course, not everyone agrees with Obama’s agenda or more accurately, the means by which he is attempting to achieve certain ends, but that is to be expected- bipartisanship and civil discourse are lofty goals but after watching the last few weeks of acting out by Rush Limbaugh, the blatant economic hypocrisy of some in the GOP and the way the Democrats, particularly in the House, seem intent on making Obama’s job as hard as possible by being as unreasonable as possible [ex: adding certain nonsense to the stimulus package], it becomes more and more apparent that political infighting and partisan rancor are the mainstay of the DC establishment, and of the mainstream media in particular.

While it is far too soon to judge the President’s success or failure in any given area, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria has written a commentary about his initial thoughts on Team Obama’s foreign policy and I agree with about 99% of it. I like Zakaria and am trying to make a point of watching his Sunday show, ‘GPS’, on CNN.

Let me say this LOUD AND CLEAR- some of the criticism of Israel and it’s policies (and those who champion them) is born of an underlying anti-semitism, but the almost constant insinuation from right-leaning, pro-Israel hawks, that any criticism of Israel is per se anti-semitic, is a lazy, lame lie which diminishes the very real anti-semitism that does exist. No nation, including Israel and the US, are above criticism or reproach. I personally support Israel’s right to exist and right to defend itself but increasingly, I find many of it’s policies to be self-defeating and even in some cases, reprehensible. Does that make me anti-semitic? Absolutely not. Just as my criticism of some US policy does not make me un-American.

Adding to the controversy is the fact that Chas Freeman sent a letter to Foreign Policy, which slammed the Israel Lobby (AIPAC?) as being the primary actors behind the firestorm of criticism which erupted when Freeman was tapped by Obama and Adm. Blair, to head the NIC. I think that there is probably some truth to that, but there was also vocal criticism of Freeman’s lax attitude towards human rights in China, among other things. That said, no one could argue that Freeman wasn’t qualified for the NIC post. More on the Freeman mess, here.

Needless to say, it didn’t help much when Chuck Shumer came out yesterday and bragged that he was the primary force behind preventing Freeman from being Director of the NIC and that the basis of his opposition was Freeman’s past statements criticizing aspects of Israeli policy.

For an excellent, but clearly progressive, take on the Freeman debacle, check out Glen Greenwald’s commentary on the issue. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, it’s worth a read.