.
What’s this all about, two headlines in Israeli press … in addistion to steps forward in a regional peace plan.
(Haaretz) – U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said today that the Obama administration would not stand in Israel’s way should the latter chooses to take military action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat.
Israel has the right to determine its own course of action with regard to the Iranian nuclear threat regardless of what the Obama administration chooses to do, Biden told ABC reporter George Stephanopoulos.
When asked whether the Obama administration would restrain Israeli military action against Iran, Biden responded: “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.”
Stephanaopoulos posed the question three times, and each time Biden repeated that Israel was free to choose its actions.
“If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.”
According to The Sunday Times, Mossad chief Meir Dagan held secret meetings with Saudi officials, who gave their tacit approval to Israel’s use of the kingdom’s airspace.
STOP! IT’S BOLTON BUTTING IN AGAIN.
The report also quoted John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, as saying that it would be “entirely logical” for Israeli warplanes to fly over Saudi Arabia en route to bombing nuclear targets in Iran.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet Sunday that the government has won “broad national consensus” in Israel for the concept of a two-state solution, hailing it as a major achievement of his 100-day-old coalition.
He said that the infusion of “real meaning” into the two-state solution was one of the most important achievements of his government so far.
“The Palestinians will have no choice but to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the [Palestinian] refugees issue will be resolved outside of Israel, and Israel will be entitled to defensible borders with full demilitarization of the Palestinian state,” he said.
He also listed to other achievements – “quiet in southern Israel and power of deterrence.”
…
Barak, who last met envoy George Mitchell on Tuesday in New York, travels to London later Sunday for another round of talks aimed at narrowing a rift with U.S. President Barack Obama, whose administration has demanded a halt to settlement activity.
The defense minister told reporters he was aiming for a “broader understanding with the United States on diplomatic moves, including a comprehensive regional agreement”.
Barak said Israel was also seeking “a way to translate” the 2003 road map peace plan into “a path acceptable to us, the United States and others”.
This is what they were pushing three years ago.
They know if anyone bombs Iran, settlements and Palestinian state will all forgotten. And they will be free to expand. Who’s to stop them.
I so hope this is not the case. Could it be Israel threatening usa, not usa backing this idea? does seem to contradict Barack’s theme of regional dialog.
.
Looks like Mitchell wants to ease tension on Israel’s northern front. The Shaba Farms will be the focus of early negotiations. The Iramian influence on Hezbollah would thereby be reduced. For regional peace and Palestinian statehood, more important is the support from (Sunni) Arab nations like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and of course Egypt. Their common cause is opposition to Iran. Preference for Obama will be to take Iran out of the peace equation, Ahmadinejad has performed well to make this so much easier.
(Haaretz) – Another development in the status of Fuad Siniora’s government versus the strength of Hezbollah. After the government received “a franchise” to enter into negotiations on a prisoner-exchange deal, Energy Minister Mohammed Fneish, a Hezbollah representative, announced that once the IDF withdrew from the Shaba Farms area, Hezbollah’s role as a “liberating” army would be over, and it would stick to a purely a defensive role.
This is a very significant statement, because it begins to define the conditions for Hezbollah’s disarmament.
The government of Lebanon, Hezbollah, the United States, France and the United Nations have all realized now that the key to achieving a long-term and sustainable cease-fire by means of the deployment of the Lebanese Army in the south lies in a resolution to the Shaba Farms dispute.
Syria is no less an important player in this regard. In keeping with maps approved by the UN, the Shaba Farms area lies in Syrian territory, so an official document in which Damascus relinquishes the area would be required too.
Will Syria agree to grant one now? An agreement to this end may be reached later in the week, … Washington is likely to offer Damascus a generous benefits package and a warm return to the “family of nations.”
The next stage would have to be securing Israel’s consent to withdraw from the Shaba Farms area, as this would then be a withdrawal from Lebanese territory; and only then could the Lebanese Army take up positions in the south, perhaps with the assistance of a multinational force if Hezbollah gives its okay
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Very, very interesting. thanks. Looks like Obama is treating it (rightly so) as a complex a multi-stage process.
Another thought re: topic. Maybe Biden saying this is a “have your cake and eat it too” situation. Obama admin “threatens” Iran, but could be interpreted as Biden loose lips, that Biden overstates on his own time and it’s not an official threat from Obama.
‘U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said today that the Obama administration would not stand in Israel’s way should the latter chooses to take military action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat.’
So, there you have it people in plain Biden English. He has given Israel the green light. I suppose that he’s interpreting Obama’s position. Well, he is. Funny that he doesn’t say that there is no nuclear threat and that even if there were one, Israel doesn’t have the right to attack any country. Only the U.S. has that god-given right. Maybe that’s wha the U.S. and Israel have in common: the god-given right.
Interesting timing, given that the political crisis in Iran isn’t over. If the US were serious about wanting a more liberal government in Iran, it wouldn’t be making statements like this.
after reading this nyt post about this, l think l’ll take the contrarian viewpoint.
it occurs to me that what’s left unsaid is, perhaps, more important than what was said. granted, one may interpret this as a green light for israel to pursue a military strike against the iranian nuclear sites, but my impression is that it’s merely an open distancing of the u.s., vis-a-vis preemptive action. there’s no mention of what consequences such action might have on the relationship between israel and the u.s. imo, it’s a carefully parsed and veiled threat of if they think it’s ok, then go ahead, and see what happens.
it stands to reason that we cannot condone, overtly, such an action without being perceived as complicit in it. the nyt article takes pain to point out the opinion of the chairman of the joint chiefs…
obama obviously wants to pursue other options, and it’s unlikely that this is, in reality, being perceived as a positive development by the israeli administration. ergo, this is nothing but spin for political reasons. bebe’s already in trouble, and perhaps this is a way of issuing a warning re: the lack of support for such an endeavor, while still providing him with maneuvering room.
it’s also interesting that the saudis may be open to over flights, but it’s telling that no mention of over flying iraq…who’s airspace is controlled by the u.s. forces… is mentioned.
l think it highly unlikely that this amounts to a tacit approval of any actions.
I am doubtful of the saudi statement too.
.
(JPost) – Relations between Teheran and Cairo grew uncharacteristically tense in April after reports that a Hizbullah terrorist cell – believed to be operating under orders from Iran – had been uncovered in Egypt, where it was allegedly planning a series of attacks to undermine President Hosni Mubarak’s regime.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Juan Cole sort of agrees with you today.
Referring to dada, I forgot to say.
.
Mullen, who as Joint Chiefs chairman is the top military adviser to Obama and Gates, said he worries about unpredictable consequences of an attack on Iran.
“I worry about it being very destabilizing not just in and of itself but the unintended consequences of a strike like that,” he told CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “At the same time, I’m one that thinks Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I think that’s very destabilizing.”
Mullen said he worries that, in the event Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, other countries in the Middle East would feel compelled to follow suit. That would open a door to a proliferation of nuclear technology that would be destabilizing, Mullen said, adding that this is a subject he discusses regularly with his Israeli counterpart.
ArabNews: Biden gives Israel OK for Iran attack
I suppose it’s up to Israeli intelligence on WMD’s within a sovereign enemy nation!
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."