A New Direction On Israel

Following the Times story that Obama has taken a new direction on Israel, we see from Laura Rozen that the deputy US Ambassador to the UN has urged that body forward into the MidEast breach.

In describing Obama's apparent decision to blame Israel for the (eternal) lack of progress on peace talks, the Times resorts to a bit of "Bush did it, too" subterfuge:

The glimmers of daylight between United States and Israeli interests began during President George W. Bush’s administration, when the United States became mired in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years ago, Condoleezza Rice, then secretary of state, declared during a speech in Jerusalem that a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians was a “strategic interest” of the United States. In comments that drew little notice at the time, she said, “The prolonged experience of deprivation and humiliation can radicalize even normal people.”

Let me help the Times find the context and complete the first quote:

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is in the strategic interest of the United States, yet we will defend against any action, as we always have, that would compromise Israel's security. That is my commitment to you.

If Obama remembered the second part, the Times forgot to report it.

Here is the transcript of the press conference from which the Times extracted this story.  I think the President was extremely opaque, and the fact that it took two days for people to interpret his words makes me wonder whether there is some hype in play here; perhaps one faction or another is overstating the case in order to force the President forward, or back.  In any case, the Times did talk to "administration officials" and we do have the push at the UN, so something is moving.

However, Obama sidestepped an opportunity to bash Israel when asked at the press conference about Israel's non-signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  And his "vital strategic interest" comment was quite general:

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Good afternoon.  Given the progress you have cited in recent days on your foreign policy agenda, to what extent do you feel like you have gained political capital with which to take further to the international stage for the rest of this year, to perhaps rejuvenate some initiatives in trouble spots such as the Middle East and elsewhere?

THE PRESIDENT: ...And I remain committed to being a partner with countries around the world, and in particular hot spots around the world, to see if we can reduce those tensions and ultimately resolve those conflicts.  And the Middle East would be a prime example.  I think that the need for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and the Arab states remains as critical as ever. 

It is a very hard thing to do.  And I know that even if we are applying all of our political capital to that issue, the Israeli people through their government, and the Palestinian people through the Palestinian Authority, as well as other Arab states, may say to themselves, we are not prepared to resolve this -- these issues -- no matter how much pressure the United States brings to bear. 

And the truth is, in some of these conflicts the United States can’t impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism. I think it was former Secretary of State Jim Baker who said, in the context of Middle East peace, we can’t want it more than they do. 

But what we can make sure of is, is that we are constantly present, constantly engaged, and setting out very clearly to both sides our belief that not only is it in the interests of each party to resolve these conflicts but it’s also in the interest of the United States.  It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.  And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.

So I’m going to keep on at it.  But I think on all these issues -- nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation, Middle East peace -- progress is going to be measured not in days, not in weeks.  It’s going to take time.  And progress will be halting.  And sometimes we’ll take one step forward and two steps back, and there will be frustrations.  And so it’s not going to run on the typical cable news 24/7 news cycle.  But if we’re persistent, and we’ve got the right approach, then over time, I think that we can make progress.

For my money, someone ought to ask him about Kashmir - resolving that would reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, thereby helping to mitigate Pakistan's nuclear aspirations and support of terrorist groups aimed at India; it would also reduce Pakistan's need to promote allies in Afghanistan.

Well.  Kashmir won't be solved by the US or noted by the US press, but if glorious multi-national conferences are Obama's goal, it would be a great topic.

IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE GETTING NERVOUS ABOUT THIS: From the Volokh Conspiracy we find David Bernstein wondering why Obama is so sure that Palestinans even want a state.  They have reclaimed Gaza, the world is on their side - why not hold out for the whole ball of wax, which would include a right of return and perhaps the destruction of Israel?

And if a notable subset of Palestinians and the "Arab street" believe time is on their side, then the following suggestion by Barry Rubin and linked by Mr. Bernstein comes into play:

And so if Obama were to implement any conceivable negotiated solution--even an extremely pro-Palestinian one by Western standards--he'd be labelled as the man who sold out the Palestinians and go down in history as a betrayer and Zionist imperialist. I'd bet money on being able to collect a considerably large set of clippings denouncing him as worse--more "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Arab"--than George W. Bush! And if you think that isn't likely then, forgive me for saying so, you don't really understand how Middle East politics work.

Whoa!  Obama standing in the way of the (illegitimate) aspirations of the Palestinian people!

I'LL GIVE YOU A NEW DIRECTION:

From the Times:

The administration’s immediate priority, officials said, is jump-starting indirect talks between Israelis and Palestinians. There is still a vigorous debate inside the administration about what to do if such talks were to go nowhere, which experts said is the likeliest result, given the history of such negotiations. Some officials, like Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, advocate putting forward an American peace plan, while others, like the longtime Middle East peace negotiator Dennis B. Ross, who now works in the National Security Council, favor a more incremental approach.

Obama doesn't do incremental!  I say, offer the Palestinians subsidized participation in the new US health exchanges as part of a peace deal.  Then he can pin down two legacies at once.

I don't foresee any problems.

Comments

[Clarice]

Nor do I, TM. It's one of those ideas that's so brilliant and simple one wonders why we had to wait for you to advance it.

XOXOXO

[bgates]

we will defend against any action, as we always have, that would compromise Israel's security. That is my commitment to you.

And if Barry said that, you can take it to the bank.

Which is where they keep the big stacks of worthless promises these days.

[Not worth the paper they aren't written on. And squirrelled away down the memory hole.]

Be careful about casting aspersions on those big stacks. They are the most legitimate stuff backing our currency these days.
===============

[fdcol63]

What's gonna happen when Hezbollah starts firing Scuds into Israel?

Prediction: Damascus ceases to exist.

[Ignatz]

--There is still a vigorous debate inside the administration about what to do if such talks were to go nowhere, which experts said is the likeliest result, given the history of such negotiations.--

I hope that once in my lifetime a US Pres will be elected whose Israeli-Palestinian strategy consists solely of stating that we stand by our ally Israel and if the Palestinians want to be rescued or have a homeland that some of their Arab allies awash in our trillions of oil extorted dollars and thousands of square miles of empty desert give it to them.
Why do American presidents of both parties insist on going aground on this same rock of negotiating a peace decade after decade? It keeps the Palestinians stranded, as the other Arabs cynically hope, and slowly weakens Israel.

[Clarice]

Why do American presidents of both parties insist on going aground on this same rock of negotiating a peace decade after decade?

Because the Kashmir dispute is too easy to bother with?

[anduril]

I think it would be helpful--if the goal is to understand Secretary Rice's remarks--to place here remarks in a slightly wider context, by including the preceding paragraph as well:

When Israel was besieged by terror, the United States insisted that Israel had a right to defend itself. When people used to say, and we forget now that they used to say it, "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter," it was President Bush who said no, the intentional murder of innocent people is wrong, period. And when violent extremists proclaim their desire to "wipe Israel off the map," it was the United States that has responded with a security package to help Israel defend its homeland against any and all threats.

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is in the strategic interest of the United States, yet we will defend against any action, as we always have, that would compromise Israel's security. That is my commitment to you. The commitment of America has given Israel the confidence to work with us and to work with responsible Palestinians and with our friends in the region to begin creating real conditions for peace, conditions that were not there just a few years ago when President Bush took office.

Crucial to the context are the following words:

violent extremists proclaim their desire to "wipe Israel off the map,"

My understanding is that these words address the alleged threat by Iran's president, namely, to "wipe Israel off the map." The alleged threat was uttered on 10/26/2007, and Secretary Rice offered her remarks on 11/4/2007. IOW, Secretary Rice, toward the beginning of her remarks, sets the groundwork for what is to come by reaffirming the commitment of the US to the security of Israel--especially in the context of supposed Iranian threats to "wipe Israel off the map."

Now, Secretary Rice also refers to terrorism, but she speaks of it as in the past, and as something that has been forgotten in some respects. She is clearly not referring to present threats, such as that she supposes is posed by Iran.

All that said, however, Secretary Rice wished to move on to something she considered very important for US national security, which was laying the foundations for peace between Israeli's and Palestinians, and in that regard Secretary Rice had concerns. One concern was with the rise of violent groups such as Hamas. However, Secretary Rice also was concerned that, at this point, the Palestinians see no realistic prospect for statehood, and that is the context for the quote that appeared in the NYT:

Responsible Palestinian leaders are genuinely committed to fighting terrorism and building a democratic state, but they are overcoming a crippling legacy of misrule. These are tall orders and the Palestinians need partners. They need a realistic prospect of statehood and we need to help Palestinian reformers show that they can deliver on this hope; for as we read in Proverbs, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my fear, that if we do not act now to show the Palestinians a way forward, others will show them a way forward. If the Palestinians are losing hope, especially among the young, we have a great danger before us. The prolonged experience of depravation [sic] and humiliation can radicalize even normal people. We've all heard the stories and we've read the reports.

But what is different now and far more dangerous is the context. There are other stories, after all, being told and being written out there today: the stories of violent extremists, of Iranian-backed radicals, and of al-Qaida. They prey for these violent -- the prey for these violent extremists is the Palestinian youth, those who have known little else than intifada, occupation, and daily lives of trial. My fear is that if Palestinian reformers cannot deliver on the hope of an independent state, then the moderate center could collapse forever and the next generation of Palestinians could become lost souls of unbridled extremism.

I believe that the purpose of Secretary Rice's remarks was NOT primarily to assure Israel of US support for Israeli security--her remarks to that effect were merely the preliminary to her main point, which was to urge the Israelis to engage in serious peace talks with the Palestinians. And so she closes with these words:

Israelis have waited too long for the security that will come living side by side with a peaceful and democratic neighbor. Palestinians have waited too long for the dignity that will come with an independent state. We have all waited too long for peace and we should wait no longer. I believe that most Israelis want to end the occupation and that most Arab states and most Palestinians want to end the conflict. And I believe that we have two democratic leaders in Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas who know that the best way to serve their citizens is to build a basis for peace.

This is a moment to advance the historic, long-held aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, but also to recognize that peace will require difficult, even painful sacrifices by both sides.

So let us summon our strength. Let us move forward confidently. And let us secure for all times what David Ben-Gurion called the legacy of a small nation which has endured great suffering and tribulations, but which is nevertheless great and eternal in spirit, vision, faith, and virtue.

In the overall context, I think the NYT has a strong argument that Secretary Rice addressed these words to the Israelis precisely because she considered that they were dragging their feet on peace talks. Otherwise, why would she repeatedly express concern that Palestinians were losing hope, that they would no longer believe that their was any realistic prospect of peace? Disagree with Secretary Rice's views if you wish, but I think the NYT is interpreting her meaning correctly.

[anduril]

Here's a much shorter version of what I just wrote.

The NYT maintains that the view that Israeli positions on Palestinian issues were having a negative effect on US national security concerns wase already coming to the fore during the Bush administration. The NYT points to an address by Secretary Rice as evidence of that. I think--for reasons already given--that the NYT is correct.

[fdcol63]

By this point in her tenure as SecState, Rice had been infected with the liberal pro-Palestian / anti-Semitism / anti-Israeli fervor that is de rigeur at Foggy Bottom.

Just like Powell .... unless he was always so.

Israel is not the problem. Israel is the canary in the coal mine.

[Janet]

Israel is not the problem. Israel is the canary in the coal mine.

Amen, yes, dittos, right on, so true.

The am DC Tea Party went well. Beautiful day. I'm home for 2 hrs. or so, and then back for the evening Washington Monument Tea Party. Met up with Jane and Caro, and then were joined by Laura's husband and wonderful daughter for a late lunch. Great day...great people.

Missed running into Soylent....maybe tonight. I need to get the name of the book you recommended Soylent. I didn't write it down.

Excuse me,I need to inject some coffee into my veins....

[glasater]

Bill Maher--that idiot--said years ago Jordan really belonged to the Palestinians.
What happened to that thinking?

[fdcol63]

"What happened to that thinking?"

It was "corrected" in September 1970, when King Hussein of Jordan cracked down on the PLO and killed thousands of them to keep his own country.

Funny how we never hear about that from the Palestinians themselves or their Arab "brethren".

[glasater]

Although I couldn't find it in wiki in a very quick read through, I believe Hashemites are a minority in that country.

Thanks fdcol63.

[dick]

I love the bit where he talks about the United States and the solutions:

"And the truth is, in some of these conflicts the United States can’t impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of old patterns of antagonism. I think it was former Secretary of State Jim Baker who said, in the context of Middle East peace, we can’t want it more than they do."

In his view the United States is empowered to IMPOSE solutions? Where did that one come from in his international plans. Did he give himself this power?

[Ignatz]

--Here's a much shorter version of what I just wrote.--

A sound policy. Henceforth, please consider applying it sedulously.

[BR]

Funny how short this thread is. It's as if Obama is already a lame duck. We and the world know everything he says or writes or authorizes or imposes have no shelf life, so who cares what he does :)

[BR]

Desert Mists

Like footprints in the sand
When a warm wind blows
Ink dissipates in the mist
When the wind kisses the sea

[Clarice]

www.mclaughlinonline.com/6?article=28

Even the Jewish voters are leaving him it seems.

And that would be something.

[Rob Crawford]

Why do American presidents of both parties insist on going aground on this same rock of negotiating a peace decade after decade?

IMHO, it's not the insistence of the presidents, but the insistence of the permanent staff at State. It's THEIR obsession, and they refuse to focus on anything else. They taint every briefing they give with it, tie every problem in the world to it, and make it into the biggest problem in the world. That leads presidents into thinking it really is, and they end up wasting money, brains, and time on trying to "solve" the "problem".

Now, why it's the obsession of State is another question. I think it's a combination of seeing Saudi $$$$ at the end of their careers, being entirely too infatuated with the Europeans, and frank antisemitism.

[nathan hale]

I think that's fair, Rob, now there was an extreme version of this thesis, presented in
a book by Loftus, with the title "War against
the Jews" leaning almost entirely against the GOP, but these attitudes seem to be leading to
thee consequences in this LUN

[Cecil Turner]

In the overall context, I think the NYT has a strong argument that Secretary Rice addressed these words to the Israelis precisely because she considered that they were dragging their feet on peace talks.

If you ignore the fact that a two-state solution is what was originally proposed and rejected by the Palestinians, and that Palestinians regard the solution as at best a compromise (with the unrealistic "right of return" being their preferred position), then I suppose you could regard this as a strong argument.

But regardless, that's not what they said. And no reading of Rice's words could fail to note her claimed solidarity with Israel and the fact that she regards the solution as in both the US and Israeli interest. The NYT claimed "daylight between United States and Israeli interests," which is only supportable by Dowdification. Which they did.

[Ignatz]

--IMHO, it's not the insistence of the presidents, but the insistence of the permanent staff at State.--

I find it hard to believe that essentially every president since Nixon has been so weak willed that they can be pushed into this. I think the grand vision of forging peace where there hasn't been peace in several thousand years appeals to the grandiose that is in every president to some extent and the inertia of each succeeding president trying and failing leads the successor to prove he can do what the others have failed at.
So, no doubt the cretins at State are all too willing to feed that, but I'd say there seems to always be an appetite to feed in the first place.

[Clarice]

Do not get me started on loftus, narciso. He's a nutter.

[Neo]

TM: are you saying that Obama is embracing Nancy Pelosi's "NewD irection" ?

[Neo]

ObamaCare Bad News of the Day.

Currently, people with massive medical expenses — more than 7.5 percent of their income — can deduct them on their taxes. Under Obamacare, the threshold goes up to 10 percent in 2013 for younger taxpayers and in 2017 for older ones.

[nathan hale]

I thought that was just me, Clarice,although Timmerman seems to have thought he had some
good points, re the missing WMD's in some conference

[anduril]

If you ignore the fact that a two-state solution is what was originally proposed and rejected by the Palestinians, and that Palestinians regard the solution as at best a compromise (with the unrealistic "right of return" being their preferred position), then I suppose you could regard this as a strong argument.

But regardless, that's not what they said. And no reading of Rice's words could fail to note her claimed solidarity with Israel and the fact that she regards the solution as in both the US and Israeli interest. The NYT claimed "daylight between United States and Israeli interests," which is only supportable by Dowdification. Which they did.

1. Neither I nor Secretary Rice are/were ignoring Palestinian rejection of the two state solution. Rice's contention, which I quoted, is:

Responsible Palestinian leaders are genuinely committed to fighting terrorism and building a democratic state, but they are overcoming a crippling legacy of misrule. These are tall orders and the Palestinians need partners. They need a realistic prospect of statehood and we need to help Palestinian reformers show that they can deliver on this hope; for as we read in Proverbs, "Where there is no vision, the people perish."

IOW, she maintains that the time is ripe, that if "responsible" Palestinian leaders are able to show that they have "delivered" on the alleged hope for a democratic state, they will also be able to deliver on the hope for peace. She's also clearly saying that she needs the Israelis to step up:

They need a realistic prospect of statehood and we need to help Palestinian reformers show that they can deliver on this hope;

It's clear that only Israeli actions can provide such a prospect. You don't have to agree with her, but that appears to be what she's saying. It seems obvious that if she thought the Israelis were already going the extra mile in this regard she wouldn't have delivered these remarks the way she did.

2. Secretary Rice also clearly claims that peace between Israelis and Palestinians is in the strategic interests of both Israel and the United States:

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is in the strategic interest of the United States, yet we will defend against any action, as we always have, that would compromise Israel's security. That is my commitment to you. The commitment of America has given Israel the confidence to work with us and to work with responsible Palestinians and with our friends in the region to begin creating real conditions for peace, conditions that were not there just a few years ago when President Bush took office.

I'm not at all sure that the Israelis have ever really agreed with that assessment, at least not if "peace" is viewed as it generally is viewed in the US. That leaves open the question that the NYT implicitly raises: what if peace as envisioned by the US turns out to be in the strategic interests of the US, but NOT in the strategic interests of Israel, as Netanyahu now seems to claim. That would open some "daylight," and the question would then be: how should a US administration deal with such a situation? Seize the strategic interest for the US, or sacrifice it for Israel?

One solution to this conundrum is the Neocon solution: let Israel define for the US what the US's strategic interests are. Another solution would be for the US to have a public airing of the facts and a public debate on the issue of what the US's strategic interests are. Are US interests truly identical with Israel's self perceived interests, or are they not? In related matters, David Goldman, aka Spengler, argues that the Neocons (and despite his protestations, he's a Neocon too) have screwed Israeli security up royally. But let's talk about it.

[Cecil Turner]

Secretary Rice also clearly claims that peace between Israelis and Palestinians is in the strategic interests of both Israel and the United States:

Exactly. So at the very least, they're overstating the "daylight" theory of diverging interests as espoused by Rice, regardless of your later extrapolation of the question "implicitly raise[d]" by the NYT.

Short version: TM's got it right; that isn't what she said.

[anduril]

Here's the problem: Rice is speaking Diplomat-ese.

She SAYS peace between Israelis and Palestinians is in the strategic interests of both Israel and the United States, But she's also clearly indicating that she wants the Israelis to stop dragging their heels and get with the program as she sees it.

Question: If that was the case--that Rice's peace proposals were in the strategic interests of both Israel and the US--then why were the Israelis dragging their heels on this good thing?

Answer: Because the Israelis DON'T think that "peace" in the American sense is in their (the Israelis') strategic interest--that's the American mantra.

Question: Then is Secretary Rice so stupid that she doesn't understand that the Israelis don't regard "peace" in the American sense as in their (the Israelis') strategic interest?

Answer: No, she's not that stupid.

Question: Well then what was she up to?

Answer: She nevertheless 1) wanted, if possible, to talk the Israelis into something the Israelis saw as not in their strategic interest but which SHE saw as beneficial to US strategic interests (fat chance!) or, failing that, 2) she wanted to put the world on notice as to what her own position was.

Question: Are there any other possibilities.

Answer: Yes, but those would be more speculative.

[JM Hanes]

"I believe that the purpose of Secretary Rice's remarks was NOT primarily to assure Israel of US support for Israeli security--her remarks to that effect were merely the preliminary to her main point, which was to urge the Israelis to engage in serious peace talks with the Palestinians."

Funny, but it sure sounds like Rice was saying that such assurances had already brought the Israelis to the table:

The commitment of America has given Israel the confidence to work with us and to work with responsible Palestinians and with our friends in the region to begin creating real conditions for peace, conditions that were not there just a few years ago when President Bush took office.

Considering the kind of coalition of the willing Rice describes above, this is a remarkable assertion:

"It's clear that only Israeli actions can provide such a prospect."

She's hardly blaming the Israelis for the visionless, "crippling legacy of misrule" which has left Palestinians susceptible to "Iranian-backed radicals," al-Qaida, and increasingly vocal advocates of wiping Israel off the map. It sounds suspiciously like she was telling Palestinian leadership, along with all our other "friends in the region" too, that the time was more than ripe to start selling the next generation an alternative future, before they were (inevitably) lost forever. It's not particularly unreasonable to suggest that she was also telling Israelis not to freak out over U.S. overtures to responsible Palestinians.

Of course, when you insist that folks are speaking in code, they can mean whatever you want them to mean.

[Cecil Turner]

Here's the problem: Rice is speaking Diplomat-ese.

There's a shocker: head diplomat speaks the lingo. There is little new or interesting about the idea that US negotiators have to push both sides together to make progress on "peace talks." Nor is there much doubt US diplomats are more receptive to the Palestinian side under Democrat control. What is slightly news is that it's more so than usual under this President. (Go figure.) Apparently the NYT finds that uncomfortable, and wants to obscure the distinction.

The contention here is that this started under Bush. It didn't. If anything, Bush was more sympathetic to the Israelis than Clinton. Moreover, the nonsense is supported by Dowdification, and TM was correct in pointing it out.

[anduril]

As for your first point, that US assurances of security had brought Israel to the negotiating table, I don't for a moment think the Israelis are stupid enough to rely on US assurance of security. That's precisely why they used Jonathan Pollard to obtain super sensitive information--they weren't going to wait for the US to share all information and they're not about to put all their security eggs in the basket of US assurances. As far as I'm concerned, that's a healthy attitude. US assurances have not exactly proved ironclad over the last batch of decades. Rice's words in that respect are pretty much just boilerplate, otherwise she wouldn't have felt it necessary to go on and urge the Israelis to hold out "a realistic prospect of statehood" to the Palestinians. It's one thing to sit at a negotiating table to make the Americans happy, it's quite another to hold out "a realistic prospect of statehood" to the people on the other side of the table.

She's hardly blaming the Israelis for the visionless, "crippling legacy of misrule" which has left Palestinians susceptible to "Iranian-backed radicals," al-Qaida, and increasingly vocal advocates of wiping Israel off the map.

I agree that Rice isn't saying that ALL the Palestinians' problems are to be laid at the feet of the Israelis, but her further statement

The prolonged experience of depravation [sic] and humiliation can radicalize even normal people.

is a clear indication that she regards Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to be a significant factor in the "prolonged experience of depravation [sic] and humiliation" that Palestinians have suffered. That this is her view is further indicated by her words (shortly after the quoted passage):

the prey for these violent extremists is the Palestinian youth, those who have known little else than intifada, occupation, and daily lives of trial.

One may argue about the meaning of some of the words Rice uses, but her reference to "occupation" is clear enough--the humiliating occupation that Palestinians suffer is specifically Israeli occupation. When Rice goes on to add that the Palestinians need to be shown the way forward and need "partners," I have no doubt that she's urging the Israelis, in Diplomat-ese, to be more forthcoming. In Rice's view, there can be no solution unless the Israelis are willing to give more. I'm sure she doesn't consider greater Israeli flexibility to be a guarantee of peace, but she does see it as a condition.

Therefore, the NYT is correct to say that Rice sees daylight between US and Israeli strategic interests. For a long time the Israelis have been satisfied with the status quo, even seeking to expand via "settlements," at the expense of Palestinians. Rice was well aware of these realities when she spoke, and her words did nothing to change that (probably no surprise to her). That situation is beginning to change somewhat, as some Israelis come to realize that no status quo can last forever, and that when this status quo inevitably breaks down the results could be very detrimental for Israeli security.

The contention here is that this started under Bush. It didn't. If anything, Bush was more sympathetic to the Israelis than Clinton.

The situation is more complicated than that. The Bush administration, especially during its closing years (Rice's remarks were made in 2006 or 2007), was not unified on Middle East issues. It's well known that Cheney and Rice were very much at odds. Gates was in Rice's corner. The NYT is right, as far as it goes.

[anduril]

Cecil, I apologize. I mistook someone else for you.

[JM Hanes]

anduril:

"Cecil, I apologize. I mistook someone else for you."

ROTFL! You must have been really chapped to discover that you had inadvertently responded to one of my posts.