Two Steps Forward, One Step Back for Kerry’s Peace Talks
show comments
  • wigwag
  • Parker O’Brien

    Perhaps Mr. Mead isn’t being cynical enough. If, as many believe, the Obama administration sees Israel as the cause of the lion’s share of problems in the Middle East, this is the perfect time for such a pivot towards a seemingly irrelevant policy play. With Syria burning, Jordan on the brink, and Egypt in outright upheaval, Israel surrounded by a sea of turbulence. Since Israel faces a hostile region with potentially very hostile states on its boarders, there has never been a better time to gain leverage from US military support in return for Israeli concessions.

    • Andrew Allison

      With respect, I think you may be misreading the situation. A nuclear power beleaguered doesn’t need US support. Might I suggest that the rationale for US support is to prevent Israel from unsheathing its sword.

      • Parker O’Brien

        I think your position is wrongheaded for a number of reasons. First off your rationale is absurd, Israel has never been an aggressor in any of its conflicts, nor ever threatened to use nuclear weapons on its neighbors. Second any use of those weapons would necessarily be after the military had fallen, implying massive human casualties, including civilians. Further, the use would be a pyrrhic victory, as it would inflame the anger of all other Muslim countries, along with other international detractors, and only lessen the odds for the survival of the state of Israel. Finally, this deterrent will soon be ineffective if Iran continues its pace towards nuclear capabilities, which would only increase the odds of an eventual war.

        • Andrew Allison

          If and when, as the Israeli government has made clear, it decides that the country’s security is at stake, it will unsheathe its sword.

          As an aside, I don’t think that “absurd” would be acceptable at the GM’s dinner table.

          • Parker O’Brien

            Preventative strikes are equitable to an ‘unsheathed sword’? If so the US has no moral standing to disavow such relatively restrained tactics from its allies.

  • BobSykes

    The Arab leadership needs confrontation to survive (literally) and doesn’t want peace. They must either destroy Israel and kill the Jews or they themselves must die (literally). Arafat was given everything he wanted at Camp David, but accepting it would have lead to he overthrow and death. Likewise, Abas cannot negotiate a peace for the same reason.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.