Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

Barack Obama addressed AIPAC yesterday in anticipation of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington, which has led to some interesting responses.  There's something in Carol Lee and Jay Solomon's Wall Street Journal write-up that is worth considering in more detail, however: 

Mr. Obama's efforts to recalibrate the administration's position—cooling talk of war while nodding to the concerns of hawks such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—won some applause, including from the Israeli leader. Some of Israel's strongest backers on Capitol Hill weren't appeased, however.

"I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say," Mr. Obama said Sunday at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington's most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group....

By clarifying the administration's willingness to use force, the White House also hopes to lessen the chance Mr. Netanyahu will order a unilateral strike.

Mr. Netanyahu, who arrived in Washington on Sunday, praised Mr. Obama's speech and said it was an important step in unifying the U.S. and Israeli positions on Iran. "I appreciated the fact that he said that Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat," he said in a written statement.

Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, said the speech was "a step in the right direction," but that "we need to make sure that this president is also going to stand by Israel and not allow his administration to somehow speak contrary to what our ally thinks is in its best interest." (emphasis added)

Now, this bolded part of the quote is quite extraordinary, if you think about it.  Apparently, Cantor's standard with respect to American policy towards Israel is that the U.S. government cannot and should not contradict anything that Israel's government says.  What's good for Israel's national interests -- as defined solely by Israel -- serves American interests as well. 

Step back for a second and ask yourself if this is true of any other U.S. ally.  A NATO member?  Nah, we disagree with them all the time.  Japan?  Nope, there was a pretty bruising fight with that country's government on Okinawa bases just a few years ago.  Canada?  Hell, Mitt Romney pretty much made it clear that the U.S. is gonna get Canada's oil and I heard nary a peep of criticism from the GOP foreign policy establishment.  I can't think of a Latin American, Pacific Rim or Central Asian ally that meets this criteria. 

A few months ago, I asked whether, in the eyes of some, Israel was now the most super-special ally we have.  I think statements like Cantor's are an excellent signal that the answer appears to be yes.  So I hereby propose the following definition:  if a prominent U.S. official or foreign policy commentator proposes a standard for U.S. policy towards Israel that would never be used for any other U.S. ally or treaty partner, then they have gone the full Cantor

With the AIPAC conference going on this week, I hereby summon my readers to alert me to any further statements or criticisms that suggest the U.S. alliance with Israel is in a super-special, unique category that No Other Allies can join.   

 

SIN NOMBRE

7:22 AM ET

March 6, 2012

Learning one's ABC's

@MOHAMEDABED:

A.) So Cantor is a partisan politico in addition to being an Israeli Firster;

B.) I'm a multi-tasker;

C.) I made my nut early and am retired;

D.) You're on a number of blogs too;

E.) Anyone ever observe to you that you that your inability to argue your cause other than always trying to personally denigrate your interlocutor makes not only you but your cause look to be exclusively self-regarding, ugly and vicious?

 

JOHNBOY4546

10:22 AM ET

March 6, 2012

"durrrrr......it's called partisan politics"

I'm curious why you think that it's a GOOD thing that the Republicans think that "Israel" should be a partisan issue.

I would have thought that a hasbarah hack would consider that "Israel" should be a bipartisan issue.

Oh, well, hasbarah is all about papering over that thinking-stuff, isn't it.....

 

MOHAMEDABED

4:35 PM ET

March 6, 2012

hahah Sin nombre

so now you spend your retired days trolling blogs. Good for you! It's funny how other posters have ceased to take you seriously or read your comments along with Johnboys, neolefts, don bacons and the like.

"Israel-firster" please tell me how playing partisan politics makes someone an Israel-firster? Especially someone who has done way more in the Service of the US government than you ever have. Not to mention the very use of that term is antisemitic. Its origins are certainly anti-Semitic, and the idea that Jews are incapable of being loyal to the country of their citizenship and are only loyal to world Jewry, or the Jewish state, is an age-old anti-Semitic trope.

Not surprising that Johnboy and Sin Nombre would approve of and use words with antisemitic connotations and be proud of it....they are bigots and useless tools. Oh, lets not forget their playful use of "hasbara." Since they are too stupid to learn any other Hebrew or Arabic words, they just constantly use one word they barely understand.

How about we call you PLO and Iranian paid hacks. I think that is just giving you both too much credit.

 

MOHAMEDABED

4:36 PM ET

March 6, 2012

oh and sin nombre, please tell me what other blogs I am on

other than FP here. I have only the time to post on FP. I don't bother with anything else, even if I might glance over the comments and notice your name and the associated bullshit you spout out.

 

RIREDINPA

5:54 PM ET

March 6, 2012

Sage advice...

"Making uneducated and snarky remarks is not a career....it's just pathetic."

Perhaps you'd care to follow it yourself.

 

MOHAMEDABED

6:13 PM ET

March 6, 2012

or you as well RIRDPA

as I have yet to see anything very intellectual coming from you.

 

MOHAMEDABED

6:15 PM ET

March 6, 2012

RIRED in PA, I also haven't noticed anything very

substantive coming from you as well. So, kindly K-M-A. :)

 

RIREDINPA

7:37 PM ET

March 6, 2012

So's your mother...

is not a rebuttal and thanks for making my point.

 

MOHAMEDABED

8:49 PM ET

March 6, 2012

Rired in PA,

You are very original and funny! Thanks for also making my point, which is that you have made zero substantive comments yet. ! Keep trying :)

 

REALREALIST

2:28 PM ET

March 6, 2012

irans own statements on nuclear weapons

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2.htm

Iranians officials generally deny that they are engaged in developing a military nuclear capability. However, in a February 1987 address to Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI), President Ali Khamenei stated: "Regarding atomic energy, we need it now... Our nation has always been threatened from outside. The least we can do to face this danger is to let our enemies know that we can defend ourselves. Therefore, every step you take here is in defense of your country and your evolution. With this in mind, you should work hard and at great speed."
Hashemi Rafsanjani, president of Iran from 1989 to 1997, gave a speech on 14 December 2001 that was widely interpreted as indicating that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Israel. Calling the establishment of Israel among the worst periods of our contemporary history, Rafsanjani stated that, "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now."

Rafsanjani spoke at the Qods Day (Jerusalem Day) rallies, which are held on the last Friday of Ramadan, and in 2001 fell on 14 December. "You should make the world understand that Israel is the oppressor and that Israel must be destroyed," Ayatollah Ali Meshkini said during the nationally televised 8 December Friday Prayers in Qom. Khalid Mashaal, head of the Hamas political bureau, told Iranian state television on 11 December 2001 that events such as Qods Day contribute to "increasing our people's resistance and made the Palestinian people realize that the Islamic nation was right behind them and that it was supporting them." On Qods Day, millions of people marched through Tehran. They carried the usual inflammatory placards and voiced the usual "Death to..." chants. Their resolution, IRNA reported, said that US support for the "Zionist Regime" was the "key" to the suppression and massacre of the Palestinian people, and "the cancerous tumor of Israel is the top threat to the Middle East and the world of Islam."

Asked how Iran would react to an Israeli attack against the Bushehr nuclear reactor, Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Ali Shamkhani declared, "If Israel carries out such an action, it will receive a response, which no politician in Israel can even imagine." Shamkhani denied that Iran would resort to nuclear weapons, Al-Jazeera television reported on 4 February 2002, and he added, "Actions will speak."

Similarly vague threats of retaliation if attacked were made between then and at least June 2008, by various Iranian officials since then. Observers have also suggested that this could be an allusion to disruptive asymetric attacks, as in closing the Straight of Hormuz and attacking shipping, terrorist attacks, or even cyber terrorism. In September 2005, shortly after his election, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cited the high casualties of the Iran-Iraq War as evidence of the dangers of attacking Iran. The Voice of America reported in August 2006 that an influential cleric in Iran's Assembly of Experts had suggested that Iranian ballistic missiles would target US interests in the region and Israel if it were attacked. In April 2008, however, Deputy Commander-in-Chief Mohammad Reza Ashtiani said that Iran would "wipe out" Israel if attacked. The comments in 2008 were followed by an Israeli military exercise widely viewed as a warning to Iran and a show of resolve to prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

 

FPGUY

5:47 PM ET

March 6, 2012

Reciprocity

Isn't there a similar rule in Israel? Isn't it true that since the US is an ally of Israel, it is frowned upon for Israelis to disagree with US government policy? I mean, we're both special together, right?

 

FPGUY

5:50 PM ET

March 6, 2012

How to make this work

To avoid embarassing discrepancies, perhaps Cantor could be helpful enough to distribute the Powerpoint of Israeli-approved talking points so that "US officials" would know what to say. That would probably be most helpful and much appreciated. Always glad to be of service.

 

MOHAMEDABED

8:50 PM ET

March 6, 2012

FP Guy..."always glad to be of service"

...to men in restrooms, I assume

 

MOHAMEDABED

11:35 PM ET

March 6, 2012

Johnboy = slug and liar

who makes claims he can't back up. Like claiming Israel did not try to join NATO, which it did. Or, claiming that debkafile was a wing of the IDF, which it is not.

What an ass.

 

JOHNBOY4546

4:32 AM ET

March 8, 2012

Well, progress of a sorts, I suppose.....

"Like claiming Israel did not try to join NATO, which it did. Or, claiming that debkafile was a wing of the IDF, which it is not. "

Apparently my argumentative little friend has at least some inclining - dim as it is - of his own double-standards.

After all, he is - dimmly - alluding to the fact that in the first instance he is demanding that I prove a negative, while in the second instance he absolves himself of any need to do the same.

M, if we are to be consistent here then I propose this deal:
If I have to prove that "Israel did not try to join NATO"
then you have to prove that "debkafiles is not a front organization for the IDF".

OK?

 

DICKERSON3870

6:54 PM ET

March 7, 2012

GOING "THE FULL CANTOR" ONE BETTER!

RE: "Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, said...that 'we need to make sure that this president is also going to stand by Israel and not allow his administration to somehow speak contrary to what our ally thinks is in its best interest'."

SEE: Would God want Israel to attack Iran? ~ By (Rabbi) Michael Knopf, Haaretz, 3/04/12

(excerpt). . . With the American war in Iraq still fresh in our collective memory, Judaism’s standards for just wars become especially poignant. A decade ago, Bush Administration officials began calling for military action against Saddam Hussein. They contended that Hussein had secret weapons stockpiles, was producing weapons of mass destruction, and was supplying weapons to terrorists. Given Hussein’s belligerent attitude toward the West, his defiance of the international community, and his track record of brutality at home and abroad, these pieces of evidence were, at the time, offered to prove a clear and imminent threat to the U.S.
So the U.S. invaded, igniting a nearly ten-year war that reportedly resulted in more than 150,000 deaths. Only amid the rubble and corpses did we discover that most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of the war were false. We let fears, not facts, govern our decisions. Our goal was to save innocent lives; we took many, instead.
The Talmud teaches that, in 586 BCE, Judea was destroyed not because its defenses were too weak, but because the Jews were indifferent about shedding blood (Shabbat 33a). Let us pray that history does not repeat itself.

ENTIRE COMMENTARY - http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/would-god-want-israel-to-attack-iran-1.416343

 

MAXIMB

1:45 PM ET

March 20, 2012

Article II of the U.S.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the President the sole power to make foreign policy. Congress must ratify any treaties, but other than that, no one else has any say about what policies the U.S. will pursue. The President can enter into so-called "Executive Agreements" with other countries without Congressional approval. A state official can speak to foreign leaders, but can't bind the U.S. to a particular policy..

"Is rio orange war always forfait internet mobile inevitable ?"
MaximB

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More