Our support of Israel, at least for the last 20 years or so, has been equivocal at best. Gratitude mixed with admiration but aiways publicly balanced with criticism. Ad nauseum and a very western cop out. To ask Israel once again to save not just itself, but the rest of a cowardly west, by risking everything to defeat Hezbollah, without support!, is to ask for its suicide. How dare we? This mess, thanks to Obama's pro anti-west regime, is an existential attack on our entire concept of civilization. Either we defend America's future, or we surrender to unaccountable regimes, which include international institutions. If we don't lead, we must follow. That's a fact of human's being.
But Israel could not calmly reorganize and wait to attack while hostages were/are being held by the terrorists. Israel’s families would never have allowed it and Hamas would never have bargained a release of any hostages without all out war. Hold the line; you have the moral ground and your survival is at stake.
As a Jew and an American who has worked at the Pentagon, I don't disagree with Ambassador Oren's basic analysis, nor with the perspectives of Israelis who experiences existential dread every day. So do I, albeit from a position of safety. What I have always disagreed with, from the beginning, is goals and strategies. And especially the automatic resort to massive bombardment of a type certain to lose the moral high ground in international opinion. My original recommendation was, 1. Secure Israeli territory. Kill all invaders. Secure the borders with extensive weaponry. 2. Do nothing else yet, based on the principle of war that says: never do exactly what the enemy expects you to do. Hamas expected Israel to react with a massive response. Instead, Israel could have retrieved its dead and wounded, grieved, and enjoyed international sympathy. It could have thereafter mounted a very targeted campaign to take out Hamas' rocket launchers, while negotiating to release the hostages. World opinion would have remained on Israel's side... Exactly what Hamas would NOT have wanted.
Thank you, Ambassador Oren, for another insightful article. Another part of the Obama administration's Israel policy worth mentioning is the ten year $38B arms deal (AKA bear hug) that has resulted in the IDF's dependence on munitions made in the USA. Does the IDF have an adequate munitions stockpile to go it alone and if so for how long?
Absolutely correct...this American Jew wants Isreal to do whatever it needs to do to feel safe and allow its citizens to live in peace...f**k what the Biden Administration says it should do
Israel needs to do what it’s right for Israel. Let’s recall how well American interventions ended in Iraq and Afghanistan as of late. So, forget the American war wisdom approach, and do what is necessary for your survival in the long run!!!
I’m reading The Arc of a Covenant by Walter Russell Mead, which traces in detail the history of US-Israel relations. Curious whether @michaeloren agrees with Mead’s analysis.
The American administrations' objectives in deterring Israel always attempts to minimize their global and regional risks and exposures that could threaten their national interests. No mutual defense pact such as NORAD nor NATO in play here!
Israel's objective in deterring their hostile regional adversaries is to avoid annihilation.
Seems to be clearly divergent goals. Michael Oren's "clarity" is evident.
Israel position on the “Day After” in Gaza should be simple: a credible Palestinian leader who steps forward and publicly endorses the “two states for two people” formulation - NOT the “two states” solution which we know the Palestinians interpret as a Jew-free Palestine and an Israel that will be flooded with returning Muslims ready to turn it into another Muslim majority state (that would quickly be renamed anything but Israel). Israel should also lay out its vision of Gaza as a Singapore on the Med and invite the Abraham Accord states to assist in its reconstruction as a model for what “Palestine” could be. The reality is that the initial condition will not materialize. If Arafat couldn’t pull it off, it’s hard to see who would step forward. Any “government of technocrats” should be rejected absent the acceptance of TSfTP, as we know that such a government would be beholden to bad actors. At least Israel will have carved out a policy and vision that it would be difficult to quibble with publicly.
Once again, thank you for your excellent analysis, Ambassador Oren. I only take exception with one small point, "Despite Israel’s extraordinary efforts to avoid causing civilian casualties..." Clearly, Israel is playing by Hama Rules--referring to Hafez al Assad's handling of the Moslem Brotherhood rebellion in 1982--which sends the message throughout the region, "This is what happens if you f** with us." Everyone in the Middle East understands this; not so much in the west.
I am a supporter of the state of Israel, but must disagree with your premise about America’s motive in regard to the current debacle that Netenyau has largely created.
Had he and his government practiced any strategic foresight, the Hamas attack could have been averted. Please don’t misunderstand my point of view on this.The Hamas attack is an unforgivable outrage, and Israel’ response was to be expected. My point is that it is what you do before the attack that matters, not what you do after the attack. Israel has stopped being proactive to the threats it faces and has now become only reactive. America’s interests have always been to keep Israel “out of war” for Israel’s sake. America’s true interests and Israels interests are truly much closer aligned than your article would suggest. Israel needs to step back and start playing the long game in their relationships with its’ neighbors. Yes, I understand the global hostility of Israel’s terrorist enemies. But Israel needs to be playing the game for a sustainable peace. Its current approaches are taking the nation in the direction of continuous war that is ultimately lose-lose for all.
Our support of Israel, at least for the last 20 years or so, has been equivocal at best. Gratitude mixed with admiration but aiways publicly balanced with criticism. Ad nauseum and a very western cop out. To ask Israel once again to save not just itself, but the rest of a cowardly west, by risking everything to defeat Hezbollah, without support!, is to ask for its suicide. How dare we? This mess, thanks to Obama's pro anti-west regime, is an existential attack on our entire concept of civilization. Either we defend America's future, or we surrender to unaccountable regimes, which include international institutions. If we don't lead, we must follow. That's a fact of human's being.
But Israel could not calmly reorganize and wait to attack while hostages were/are being held by the terrorists. Israel’s families would never have allowed it and Hamas would never have bargained a release of any hostages without all out war. Hold the line; you have the moral ground and your survival is at stake.
As a Jew and an American who has worked at the Pentagon, I don't disagree with Ambassador Oren's basic analysis, nor with the perspectives of Israelis who experiences existential dread every day. So do I, albeit from a position of safety. What I have always disagreed with, from the beginning, is goals and strategies. And especially the automatic resort to massive bombardment of a type certain to lose the moral high ground in international opinion. My original recommendation was, 1. Secure Israeli territory. Kill all invaders. Secure the borders with extensive weaponry. 2. Do nothing else yet, based on the principle of war that says: never do exactly what the enemy expects you to do. Hamas expected Israel to react with a massive response. Instead, Israel could have retrieved its dead and wounded, grieved, and enjoyed international sympathy. It could have thereafter mounted a very targeted campaign to take out Hamas' rocket launchers, while negotiating to release the hostages. World opinion would have remained on Israel's side... Exactly what Hamas would NOT have wanted.
Thank you, Ambassador Oren, for another insightful article. Another part of the Obama administration's Israel policy worth mentioning is the ten year $38B arms deal (AKA bear hug) that has resulted in the IDF's dependence on munitions made in the USA. Does the IDF have an adequate munitions stockpile to go it alone and if so for how long?
Amb Oren, your
Commentary and insight has been clearheaded and probably the most valuable out there regarding Israel’s survival
Absolutely correct...this American Jew wants Isreal to do whatever it needs to do to feel safe and allow its citizens to live in peace...f**k what the Biden Administration says it should do
Israel needs to do what it’s right for Israel. Let’s recall how well American interventions ended in Iraq and Afghanistan as of late. So, forget the American war wisdom approach, and do what is necessary for your survival in the long run!!!
I’m reading The Arc of a Covenant by Walter Russell Mead, which traces in detail the history of US-Israel relations. Curious whether @michaeloren agrees with Mead’s analysis.
The American administrations' objectives in deterring Israel always attempts to minimize their global and regional risks and exposures that could threaten their national interests. No mutual defense pact such as NORAD nor NATO in play here!
Israel's objective in deterring their hostile regional adversaries is to avoid annihilation.
Seems to be clearly divergent goals. Michael Oren's "clarity" is evident.
Israel position on the “Day After” in Gaza should be simple: a credible Palestinian leader who steps forward and publicly endorses the “two states for two people” formulation - NOT the “two states” solution which we know the Palestinians interpret as a Jew-free Palestine and an Israel that will be flooded with returning Muslims ready to turn it into another Muslim majority state (that would quickly be renamed anything but Israel). Israel should also lay out its vision of Gaza as a Singapore on the Med and invite the Abraham Accord states to assist in its reconstruction as a model for what “Palestine” could be. The reality is that the initial condition will not materialize. If Arafat couldn’t pull it off, it’s hard to see who would step forward. Any “government of technocrats” should be rejected absent the acceptance of TSfTP, as we know that such a government would be beholden to bad actors. At least Israel will have carved out a policy and vision that it would be difficult to quibble with publicly.
Once again, thank you for your excellent analysis, Ambassador Oren. I only take exception with one small point, "Despite Israel’s extraordinary efforts to avoid causing civilian casualties..." Clearly, Israel is playing by Hama Rules--referring to Hafez al Assad's handling of the Moslem Brotherhood rebellion in 1982--which sends the message throughout the region, "This is what happens if you f** with us." Everyone in the Middle East understands this; not so much in the west.
Right on.
Great read. Maybe we just keep putting bandaids on a leaky wound. Ultimately for peace maybe George Bush said it best. Kill them all.
I am a supporter of the state of Israel, but must disagree with your premise about America’s motive in regard to the current debacle that Netenyau has largely created.
Had he and his government practiced any strategic foresight, the Hamas attack could have been averted. Please don’t misunderstand my point of view on this.The Hamas attack is an unforgivable outrage, and Israel’ response was to be expected. My point is that it is what you do before the attack that matters, not what you do after the attack. Israel has stopped being proactive to the threats it faces and has now become only reactive. America’s interests have always been to keep Israel “out of war” for Israel’s sake. America’s true interests and Israels interests are truly much closer aligned than your article would suggest. Israel needs to step back and start playing the long game in their relationships with its’ neighbors. Yes, I understand the global hostility of Israel’s terrorist enemies. But Israel needs to be playing the game for a sustainable peace. Its current approaches are taking the nation in the direction of continuous war that is ultimately lose-lose for all.
TY!!! Neal Hugh Hurwitz CC'66
Well said, Mr. Oren.