"Israel" to tiptoe or pay dearly

Caution: A new reality - Lesson for "Israel"

Source: Haaretz (an ‘Israeli' daily), 19-08-2008

By Yoel Marcus

Last week, Haaretz ran an article by Aluf Benn about the United States warning 'Israel' not to pull any surprises and attack Iran without informing the Americans ahead of time. 'Israel's' response was snooty and defiant: "'Israel' reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if other efforts to halt the Iranian nuclear program fail."

The ink was not yet dry on 'Israel's' macho reply before Russia invaded Georgia, spewing anti-Western rhetoric and threats that it would also attack Poland if the United States carried out its plan to deploy missiles in former Soviet bloc countries refusing to bow to Moscow's authority.

There is a lesson for 'Israel' in all this: If 'Israel' is dragged into a war, God forbid, it is liable to find itself very much alone. 'Israel' cannot rely on the automatic involvement of America, which did not lift a finger to stop the Russian offensive. President George W. Bush, in no rush to give up his summer vacation, made do with sending Condoleezza Rice to Georgia on a mission that was ultimately a condolence visit.

The summer of 2008 has brought 'Israel' face to face with a new reality: Russia is back to its old Cold War tricks. No one knows how the current conflict will end, but even if solutions are found and agreements are signed, Russia has made it crystal clear that it is back on the map - whether the issue is oil or strategic conflicts around the globe, including in our neck of the woods. I wouldn't be so sure Russia is overjoyed by Iran's nuclear aspirations - the number one danger now facing 'Israel' - but it hasn't said a bad word about Iran yet.

In this new reality, where everything is up in the air, 'Israel' really needs to walk on tiptoe - all the more so with a government on its way out that must do its utmost not to drag the country into actions liable to bring down the wrath of the world. Above all, we should not be springing surprises on America, or making trouble for a global superpower that is our sole friend and ally.
Getting America into hot water is liable to cost us dearly. 'Israel' needs to realize that even a superpower is bound by constraints when it comes to military action against a sovereign country.

Pessimists in this country are worried that the United States is going back to the isolationist policy it embraced when the Nazis were invading European countries at the start of World War II. That concern is certainly valid, even though America has a special bond with 'Israel', on which it will not easily turn its back.

At the same time, one senses fatigue, even in the Bush administration, with being mired in a kind of Vietnam II in the Middle East. In the media and in U.S. public opinion, one can read between the lines how sick and tired the country is of watching one administration after another try and fail to resolve the conflict in this region.

After all Bill Clinton invested in accords with the Palestinians and Syria, he will be remembered more for his cigar games with Monica Lewinsky under his desk in the White House than for his efforts to broker peace. Bush Senior tangled with Saddam Hussein. He liberated Kuwait but left Saddam alive, sowing the seeds of the current war in Iraq with its tens of thousands of dead and wounded. The Twin Towers, the worst (so-called) 'terrorist' attack in American history, fell into the lap of Bush Junior, who declared war on the "axis of evil."

But with all his power, all his military expeditions, all the billions paid out in bribes, he has not managed to capture Osama bin Laden - just one little man. Bush tackled the 'Israeli'-Palestinian peace process with great derring-do, but his insistence on democracy and holding elections brought Hamas to power.

The president who succeeds Bush has two options: He can keep fighting the (so-called) 'axis of evil', or he can focus on the serious problems that now face America - the colossal credit crisis, the mortgage crisis, the public's mistrust of the economy and the rising cost of gas. To that, he can add a new problem: a possible resumption of the Cold War.

Barack Obama, whose motto is "yes to change," may be less friendly toward 'Israel', but no one can swear that John McCain, with all the promises to the Jews he is handing out today, will still have 'Israel's' interests at heart once he is elected. The two candidates may look back at the fate of their predecessors and conclude that America's relationship with 'Israel' needs to be more demanding and less coddling in view of what is happening in the world.

The new reality also requires 'Israel' to exercise greater caution, and above all, to stop being so cocksure that America will stand by us, come what may.