2. Bill Narvey said:

Omri Ceren’s intelligent, articulate and well informed analysis explaining why the American Government, taking the lead from its State Department displays what he calls a slight pro-Arab anti-Israel bias, seems more grounded than Prof. Gill-White’s.

I do not agree however that American policy vis a vis Israel, Arabs and Palestinians is influenced only by a subtle bureaucratically entrenched leftist pull on the minds of those bureaucrats and elected representatives who contribute to greater and lesser extents, in determining American policy.

American foreign policy is influenced and probably moreso by less subtle and more pressing factors.

The expressions, “no man is an island” and “it can get lonely at the top”, give some sense of America’s strongly felt need of allies to advance its foreign policy interests politically, economically, and militarily.

In terms of the American declared war on (formerly terror) radical Islam, America has sought to draw allies from both Western and Muslim nations. Regarding its desire to play a leading role in bringing about peace between Israel and Palestinians, it has assiduously garnered support for its Road Map to peace just as it had with every other peace initiative since the first Oslo accord.

Many of those nations that America has sought support from in its various policies regarding radical Islam and its Israel-Palestinian peace initiatives, be they Muslim nations or European nations, have expressed anti-Semitic and anti-Israel views, some more openly than others and for some, anti-Semitism is what drives their foreign policy decisions when it comes to issues involving Israel.

In forging alliances with such nations, America has sought to make accommodations where they can, while at the same time straining credulity by declaring that they have not compromised, their longstanding policy of balancing support for Israel and recognizing Arab interests.

The Bush administration, recognizes full well Muslim sensibilities when it comes to its war on radical Islam and it goes way out of its way to ingratiate itself into the hearts of the American Muslim community and to assure the Muslim world that radical Islam is not what Islam is about. One does not have to look too closely to recognize that radical Islam is the Wahabbi version of Islam of Saudi Arabia that the Saudis are globally promoting and supporting. The best one might say of it is that it is the right wing of Wahabiism if one wishes to draw distinctions. That would be a distinction without a difference.

Similarly, the Bush administration in playing its role of honest broker, is exceedingly cautious about not appearing to take sides between Israel over Palestinians. Any mis-step by America that favors Israel is met with almost universal condemnation by America’s allies and any mis-step that favors Palestinians is met with almost universal praise and applause. America is no different than anyone else. Praise and applause is much preferable so the lean would be to favour Palestinians.

Still another factor that the Bush administration recognizes and must contend with in pursuit of allies is the influence of the world oil economy on the thinking of the EU and others and that those nations fear they will jeopardize their own economic interests if they should take positions vis a vis Israel that will infuriate their Muslim benefactors or for that matter their very own Muslim communities as is now being witnessed in European capitals.

Another is that OPEC nations hold a sizeable mortgage on America and as noted before, Muslim thin skinned sensibilities being what they are, the last thing America wants is for their mortgagees to start calling in loans.

Yet another factor weighing into the mix is that the Bush administration has for the last year been taking a lot of heat at home and abroad for having gone to war in Iraq. Some of that criticism is deserved and some disingenuous. Nonetheless, Bush’s approval ratings have fallen in the polls and he needed a boost.

On the theory that nothing succeeds like success, C. Rice pressured Israel into an imprudent bargain with the Palestinians in the form of the Rafah agreement, which did not even call for Palestinians going after terrorists.

Though Rice basked in the glory of the moment of proclaiming that the Bush administration had moved the parties one step closer to peace along the Road Map, it did little to help Bush’s approval ratings, but did do much to harm Israel’s interests.

Like any agreement that is unfair to one side, there is a great risk it will unravel and that is what appears to be happening to the Rafah agreement and indeed the Bush Road Map to peace. The Palestinians once again however are showing their true colors and giving Israel more than enough excuses to resile from the Rafah agreement. Still, the Rafah agreement forced on Israel by America, may have done some permanent damage by strengthening the notion that Palestinians are entitled to contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank once an independent Palestinian state comes to fruition, though there is great doubt it ever will.

In addition to these very real and immediate factors, anti-semitism plays some role in American government thinking both directly and indirectly.

Anti-semitism doubtless at least subtly plays out in the minds of some who walk the halls of power and some who comprise the State Department bureaucracy. Further anti-Semitism influences American foreign policy by the Bush administration, like previous American administrations, accommodating and appeasing anti-semitic nations to gain their support on matters that directly or indirectly impact on Israel and America’s relationship with Israel.

Omri’s view on what needs to be done to effect a change in bureaucratic and government thinking seems sensible enough when considering that matter from a general standpoint.
His advice however breaks down when going from the general to the specific.

Given the immediacy of the threat of radical Islam to not only America but to all of Western civilization and the ever clear and seemingly increasing danger to Israel which puts Israel's very existence at risk, far more effective advocacy and lobbying efforts to gain much needed support for Israel from both the public and government is desperately needed now in America as well as other Western nations.

Time to effect change in American government and bureaucratic thinking as well as in other Western nations, is a luxury Israel, Jews, their supporters and indeed Western civilization simply cannot afford.

Later could be just too late, not only for Israel which has already likely lost more ground and position than it should have for its security and future, but for Western civilization that has already undergone many changes and not good ones, because of radical Islams' war on the West.

3. Dan Barkye said:

Following in your footsteps, Omri, I comment here by copying part of my response to your comment in "US hidden goals", which now appears here as an article in itself, as you state. My comment is changed to reflect the subject of the stand-alone article.

So here it goes:

"There's a well defined position of pol sci pundits that the 'personal' is at least as influential to the policy making process as the 'impersonal', the objective pts of view in deciding such policies, to say that the policy, in whatever level and direction, is colored by so many personal whims and factors. Omri took this pt ad extremis, almost, and for that matter, in a very eloquent manner. I beg to differ. I'll explain the accepted view of policy making (which I'm sure is known to many here).

When all is said and done, the objective takes the upper hand. There should be no questions about that, otherwise the nation is imperilled and this is unacceptable. Yes, there are ups and downs in this or that measure, in this or that policy, but no one can tip the "objective" to the personal to the pt of endangering the well-being of the nation. Yes, there were grave mistakes in the history of too many nations, but all started w an objectively defined policy, not personal. I'm not talking of "L'etat c'est moi" by Louis xvi (?), I talk about the modern times.

This means that once the aims and the goals of the nation are set, then the decisions are made, and the machine is put in motion to implement them.

The aims and the goals of the nation are defined by their relative import to its well-being and to ensure its existence. Those are, schematically put and in order of importance, existential needs/goals, important ones, and regular needs.

If what I describe as an objective process of policy making is indeed the norm, can any one imagine a personal whim, fancy, caprice, or impulse, or a geographical/physical proximity and access to the President, taking the lead as *the* policy making pointers? I, for one, find it hard to believe, much more to make of it a policy making starter of my own. If I were a policy maker, I'd try to find the goals and aims of the nation in question and discern what should follow from it as the overt or covert official policy, and this is how IntServ work. Of course they take in consideration personal factors but only to a measure, not as the rolling ground for it."

If I'm correct, and I believe I am, then two conclusions are obvious:

- The decision-taking process reflects a deeper and more long-term policy, b/c of the nations goals, aims and needs.

therefore:

- The decision-taking process is of a more, much more objective nature, than same process performed after a pigmentation of it through personal parameters of whatever kind. This happens, to be sure, but in a measure that does not, and is not allowed, to influence it.

4. Rev. John D. Shook said:

Reading the above posters gives you the inclination to believe they came directly from the State Dept.. Since when has it become anathema to tell the truth instead of couching lies under the label of diplomacy? Friends do not sell their friends down the tube for their own benefit. Such as Bush, Sharon and the Quartet are doing to Israel. Bush believes in Replacement Theology, Sharon doesn't believe in anything but himself and the rest of the quartet hate the Jews with a passion.
Now for the solution: Give the Arabs ten days to exit Israel from the River of Egypt to the Great River Euphrates and if they don't then carpet bomb them into the pits of Hell and take back all the land of Canaan and hold it till Hell freezes over and this equals problem solved because one Jew plus Hashem equals a majority.

5. Dan Barkye said:

Dear Rev, John D. Shook, I am flattered to the depth of my beings by your lauds and convictions re Israel and its children, truly so, no kidding. However, let me, pls, beg to differ as to one pt in your post: It is not anathema to say the truth, on the contrary, but it so happens that I do not agree w Omri, and this, for the reasons that I cared to detail.

That said, thank you for your support and may God bless you, we need everyone.