RI... In a recent article on Israel's foreign relations, Robert Danin observes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin “clearly enjoy a better relationship with each other than either does with U.S. President Barack Obama.” The Russian-Israeli relationship has indeed been smooth to cordial in recent years, at the level of top leaders as well as more generally. Cordiality at the top tends to get explained in terms of personalities and the inclinations of individual leaders. This certainly has been true of much critical commentary in the United States about how President Obama has conducted U.S. relations with Israel. But better and more complete explanations take account of past policies of the states concerned toward each other, domestic political expectations about what the foreign relationships involved ought to look like, and how those expectations relate to actual conflicts or commonality of interests. Ultimately it is those interests, more than the attributes of the leaders, that determine the tone of relations and what we observe when leaders meet. The U.S.-Israeli relationship carries a very strong expectation, especially within domestic U.S. politics, that the relationship is and ought to be one of strong and unshakable friendship. Any apparent deviation from that expectation is treated as if it were a serious problem. Such consternation loses sight of the continued and extremely generous U.S. financial and diplomatic support to Israel. It also loses sight of the policies of the Netanyahu government that have been far removed from strong friendship. Such policies have included efforts to undermine important U.S. foreign policy initiatives (most notably negotiation of the agreement to restrict Iran's nuclear program) and practices that run directly counter to the objective that the United States shares with many others of achieving a peaceful and just resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The tone of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, and of meetings between the two countries' leaders, reflects conflicting interests, at least given how the current Israeli leadership defines its interests.
The U.S.-Russian relationship does not involve anything like the expectation within U.S. politics about the U.S.-Israeli relationship. There instead prevails an opposite expectation: that Russia is an adversary of the United States just as the USSR was during the Cold War. The expectation entails the erroneous view that Russian interests in the Middle East and elsewhere are in a zero-sum relationship with U.S. interests. Domestic criticism of President Obama's handling of U.S.-Russian relations is not so much that he has failed to achieve cordiality with his Russian counterpart than that he has not been tough enough with him. The policy background that gets lost sight of here includes Western policies based on that Cold War-like zero-sum assumption (especially the expansion of NATO) and how such policies have had something to do with Putin's gambits in Ukraine and elsewhere.
The overemphasis on personalities and personal chemistry characterizes post-meeting commentary whenever the U.S. and Russian presidents have met. After one such meeting in which much was made in the press about body language, Mr. Obama felt obliged to make his own comment about the commentary, noting that Putin has “got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid at the back of the classroom.” Personal chemistry matters, but not nearly as much as the pursuit of interests having real consequences on the ground, even if the interests are mistakenly interpreted.
The Israeli-Russian relationship is not encumbered by the sort of domestic political expectations, either positive or negative, that characterize American treatment of U.S. relations with either of the other two countries. About the only emotional factor, rooted in domestic politics, that comes somewhat into play is a sense of affinity based on the large number of Russian émigrés in Israel. So actual national interests, as distinct from presumed ones, are more determinative of the direction and tone of the relationship.
The respects in which Russian interests and the declared interests of Israel may conflict are well known. They center on Russia's relations with Iran (including Moscow's participation in negotiation of the nuclear agreement) and Russia's backing of the same side in the Syrian civil war as Iran and Hezbollah. But dip underneath the rhetoric (especially Israeli rhetoric about Iran) and the conflicts are not so sharp. The agreement that has placed Iran's nuclear program under tight restrictions and monitoring is—as many Israeli security professionals have assessed—in the interests of Israel's security. And an important background to the mixed Israeli interests involved in the Syrian civil war is that Israel enjoyed many years of quiet on the Golan front with the Assads in power, which is something it cannot expect with almost any possible alternative outcome of the war.
Originally appeared at The National Interest
Poster Comment:
Jon Dow • The U.S.-Israeli relationship carries a very strong expectation, especially within domestic U.S. politics, that the relationship is and ought to be one of strong and unshakable friendship. Any apparent deviation from that expectation is treated as if it were a serious problem.
The famous quote from Lord Palmerston, along with many others, is more stringent still: “England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”. That’s why I object to notions of an “unbreakable bond” between the US and Israel.
Furthermore, the time when America shared interests with Israel are long gone, now it is a one sided relationship based on bribery, bullying, and media manipulation. I am one who would wish to see every zionist expelled from our shores. Unimaginable death and suffering have come from their control/influence over Washington.+7
Arjun Quest • The Israeli relationship with the USA does indeed carry big expectations, mainly trillions of dollars of free loans and US weapons to keep the failed state afloat.+5 Russia is not a sucker.
tattiehowker/ chris chuba • Thank God for Putin, how lucky Russia is to have a great leader who stands-up to the war-mongering nation-destroying, despot-backing, degenerate-spreading USA. +5
Jon Dow/ tattiehowker USA, you troll, those controlling US foreign policy are Zionist Jews. One need only look at Hiltery Clinton, the NY Jew's favorite little warmonger, to see who pushes America to war. AIPAC, AEI, CFR...all Zionist Jew organizations that push America to war.
Lets look at Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon...all countries America should have no beef with, yet we are in conflict, and why, because Zionist Jews want conflict in the Middle East to promote their "greater" Israel project.+7
Rocky Racoon/ Jon Dow Well better NY then in Tel Aviv then eh? Thank US special interests for your problems and letting them get away with that they have all these years. Big Oil and the MIC did America in and the American people let it. Grow up and join the adults at the table. Admit your wrongs repent and then go forth and mulitply or die. RR
Jon Dow /Rocky Racoon • Simple comments from a simple mind...spare the passive aggressive feminist shit, your ilk had its day, and it seems like it has past. The American people, like many people around the world are subject to conditioning from a propaganda apparatus. From movies to music the EuroZionist spins their web of lies, creating the dynamic we find ourselves in today.
While "big oil and MIC are certainly players, the real power comes from banking, which your omission of this group is rather telling. 40% of every federal tax dollar goes to pay the fed, for doing something the American governemnt can do for itself. But the Jew must get theirs, especially when someone else actually does something to earn it.
PS you twit, these are not my problems but Syria's, Russia's, Iran's...et al, as for NY or TA, split the difference and return both to their rightful owners...and watch the peace bloom.
Rocky Racoon /Jon Dow • American industrial, political, and banking family Rockefeller has gotten engaged in a row with several US states over Exxon Mobil Corp, the world's largest publicly traded oil company.
The states’ lawmakers have been involved in a probe through a US Congressional committee over the corporation’s record on climate change, Reuters reported.
The attorney general of Massachusetts and investment funds of the Rockefeller family sent a letter to the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on Friday, branding it as inept to monitor a probe into Exxon’s activities.
"The Committee lacks authority to interfere with an investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office into possible violations of Massachusetts law by ExxonMobil," said a letter to the committee from the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Heale.
The coalition of some 20 states, however, has vowed to keep up with their demands and push the corporation to take action to deal with climate change.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund also sent a letter to the committee, saying its request "imperiled the funds' First Amendment rights," adding that the US "Congress's investigatory power is not unlimited."
Exxon executives are blamed for misleading the public by acting against the results of research by scientists, aimed at tackling climate change.
The panel demands access to any records of consultations held with outside environmental groups prior to the start of the investigation.
Tatarewicz/ Rocky Racoon • Climate is changing in part due to heat generated by ever-growing cities where a good deal of the heat comes from ever-increasing motor vehicle use. This heat increases the moisture-holding capacity of air above so there's little or no precipitation, particularly over farmlands down wind, thus climate change. (Temperature is significantly higher in cities compared to the surrounding countryside).
In this case it's cities and other levels of government that are responsible for climate change in their failure to provide structures that enable efficient motor vehicle travel, but more particularly in failure to facilitate ride-sharing which could easily reduce traffic volumes by a half or even a third. Instead, governments have been irresponsibly bucking attempts by Uber and others to introduce ride share.
Exxon and the rest of big oil is doing what citizens want and expect: meeting market demand. It's the politicians who have dropped the ball in climate change. I suppose they'll wake up when "down-wind" farmers file a lawsuit claiming damages for droughts caused urban mismanagement.