Israel is its own worst enemy


New Member
Mar 31, 2010
One of the rules of diplomacy is to increase the number of friends and decrease adversaries. But Israel seems to be doing the opposite.

Well-known Israeli paper Haaretz wrote in its editorial, "The intelligence failure and faulty planning in the operation to board the Mavi Marmara has led to a crisis in Israel's foreign relations and a low in its standing in world opinion." The concluding paragraph of the editorial would have given Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, no comfort. "Even if the world is 'hypocritical', as Netanyahu claims, he must fundamentally change his government's aggressive and inward-looking approach. A thorough investigation of the Mavi Marmara incident and lifting of the siege against civilians in Gaza are essential steps, but they are certainly not sufficient. If Israel is to break out of the strategic catastrophe it now faces, it urgently needs a different policy." Wise, mature, sensible Israelis would be wondering what to say to friends of Israel. The adversaries are having a ball. What a propaganda golden windfall.

One article in the International Herald Tribune has this unusual heading, "Saving Israel from itself". The writer, Nicolas D Kristo, concludes his piece thus: "He (President Obama) needs to talk sense to Israel and encourage it to back away from its plans to intercept other flotillas now heading for Gaza — that would be a catastrophe for Gaza and America alike. Above all, he needs to nudge Israel from its tendency to shoot itself in the foot, and us along with it."

This is strong stuff. Mind you the Herald Tribune is a pro-Israeli newspaper with worldwide reach. I am an admirer of Israel and its courageous and long-suffering people. For the life of one, I simply cannot comprehend the hawkish policy of the belligerent Mr Netanyahu. The only Muslim country that Israel was close to has been antagonised. Tempers are running high in Turkey. And rightly so. Surely, the vastly intelligent, astute, shrewd Israelis realise that damage-control cannot be permanent nor can it be a substitute for policy. There was a time when Israel was invincible. No longer so. Hammas is no push-over. The year 2008 and 2009 are ample proof of that. One of the unutterable rules of diplomacy is to increase the number of friends and decrease the number of adversaries. The Israeli prime minister seems to be doing the opposite.

India's response has been measured and candid. We very much want peace in West Asia. We value our relations with Israel, but not at the cost of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. We value our relations with Israel. Both India and Israel share commonalities--these provide the underpinning to the relationship. Both are parliamentary democracies governed by the rule of law, both have similar legal structures flowing from their British common law background. The media in both countries is free. Both face the threat of terrorism. In the Mumbai terror attacks on November 26, 2008, Israel was as much a target as India. Relations between the two countries exist in crucial areas, including politics, defence, economics and trade. We share information on water management, science and technology, space and security. Clean energy is another important area of cooperation where Israel has the lead in solar know-how, whereas India is ahead in wind.

There can be no peace in West Asia (a vitally important area for us) without a decision by Messrs Abbas and Netanyahu to learn to co-exist. For that, sustained dialogue is a must, not adventurism in the Mediterranean international waters.

Without the American umbrella, Israel would lead a very precarious existence. As India's benign power, GDP and influence grow, America will come closer and closer to India. Corporate America will invest in India, the amounts will be huge. It cannot be ruled out (in the distant future) that the American umbrella might develop leaks. I am reasonably confident that the think-tanks in the US and Israel are already working on this scenario and how to avoid it.


The other night I had an extraordinary dream. I am in Washington leading the Indian delegation to the Indo-US conclave. On the second day, Mrs Clinton's reception for the delegation was attended by President Obama. When I shook hands with him on being introduced to him, I was tempted to ask him a question but resisted the temptation. When I was invited to speak, I told him that I wished to ask him a question. I said, "Mr President, I am 5'.6" and shrinking--you sir, are 6'.4" and growing (forgive the pun). Could you kindly tell us how's the weather up there." Loud applause. Then I woke up. Pity, for I would have liked to hear Mr. Obama's response.

K Natwar Singh in New Delhi


Tihar Jail
Oct 2, 2009
Has the U.S. lost its ability to shield Israel at the U.N.?

Posted By Colum Lynch Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 8:15 PM Share

Two weeks ago, it looked like the United States had once against prevailed in its effort to block the establishment of an outside investigation into Israel's actions against Palestinian militants, as U.S. diplomats at the United Nations successfully gutted a Turkish proposal to set up an international probe into the deadly Israel commando raid on an aid flotilla.

But the effort faced an unexpected challenge from U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has traditionally deferred to Washington on Middle East matters. Early this week, Ban made clear that an Israeli-run investigation was not enough and that he will persist in his efforts to establish an international panel in the face of American and Israeli resistance. Ban's "proposal for an international inquiry remains on the table and he hopes for a positive Israeli response," said Ban's spokesman Farhan Haq on Monday.

The United States has privately urged Ban and others to allow the Israeli probe to be given a chance to demonstrate its credibility. But Washington has not used its position within the Security Council to block Ban's effort, according to U.N. diplomats. "We know for a fact that that there is no objection in the Security Council to the efforts of the secretary-general," Ryad Mansour, the Palestinian representative to the United Nations, told reporters on Tuesday.

Ban's demand for a probe contrasts with his previous response to calls for an international investigation into Israel's conduct during its military campaign in Gaza. In that case, Ban deferred to the Human Rights Council, which appointed South African lawyer Richard Goldstone to probe Israeli and Palestinian conduct, and then resisted demands from the Palestinians backers to follow up on the Goldstone's controversial findings. At the time, the U.N.'s principal powers, including the United States, China, Russia, and the Europeans, were also reluctant to pursue war crimes investigations against Israel.

But this time around there is broad support for a U.N. probe into the flotilla raid. Turkey Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu traveled to New York immediately after the flotilla raid to press the Security Council to condemn Israel and set up an international inquiry. After several hours of negotiations, the U.S. prevailed in watering down the final resolution, which simply calls for a credible, impartial probe. After the vote, U.S. and Israelis officials contended that Israel was in a position to conduct such an investigation on its own. On June 6, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Ban's proposal to have a former New Zealand prime minister, Geoffrey Palmer, lead an investigation into the flotilla raid. Instead, Israel late last week proposed its own investigation, with the participation of two international observers from Ireland and Canada.

But the issued has not died. On Tuesday, Turkey's U.N. ambassador Ertugal Apakan made an impassioned plea that the "only reasonable way forward" was to back Ban's call for an international investigation, according to a council member. "Turkey is pushing very hard," the council diplomat said. "Erdogan is under big pressure domestically to promote an independent, international investigation." The council diplomat said that "a vast majority" of council members would be willing to support Ban's call for an international probe. "If the Americans give in, I think everybody else would agree to that."

So far, the U.S. has not shown its cards. Alejandro Wolff, the second-highest ranking U.S. ambassador at the U.N., told the Security Council Tuesday that the U.S. believes that Israel should be given an opportunity to prove that it can conduct a credible investigation, according to council diplomats. He said that Israel's findings should be made public and for consideration by the international community. But he did not comment on Ban's proposal to press ahead with an investigation.

As for Ban's next step, the U.N. chief "thinks a thorough Israeli national investigation can be important but he believes it is not incompatible with what he has been proposing: which is an international panel to look into ... what happened," Robert Serry, the U.N. special envoy for the Middle East peace process, told reporters.

Rahul Singh

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2009
Country flag
its good for a country to be aggresive ( india is exact opposite ) however i feel Israel is getting over agressive
I don't agree with this section(in bold). Israel's geo-political location is extraordinary and its enemies are sheer extraordinary and i believe its because of mentality induced by religious bigotry and relatively overwhelming size. To survive Israel have to have and use use tools like aggressive intelligence allowing their military to carry preemptive action. "Six day war" shows why its needed and "Yom Kippur war" reminds why Israel can't afford not to have it....


Senior Member
Dec 17, 2009
Country flag
It is a matter of picking your battles and picking the right ones. Israel has been picking wrong for the last several years. They used to be quite good at it.


Oct 8, 2009
I don't agree with this section(in bold). Israel's geo-political location is extraordinary and its enemies are sheer extraordinary and i believe its because of mentality induced by religious bigotry and relatively overwhelming size. To survive Israel have to have and use use tools like aggressive intelligence allowing their military to carry preemptive action. "Six day war" shows why its needed and "Yom Kippur war" reminds why Israel can't afford not to have it....
You seem to be ill informed of the ground realities. Even before the 1967 war, CIA estimates had claimed that Israel had overwhelming technological superiority against Egypt and Syria, the only two main countries that actually did mount a war against Israel.

Besides 1960s and 70s are besides the point. We are looking at post 1992. Post 1992 it was agreed by Israel that it will commit to a two state solution. Moreover, all Arab countries, the PA as well as HAMAS have agreed to recognize Israel as soon as Israel withdraws to 1967 borders. At present not a single sovereign Arab government has had hostile actions against Israel. Even Palestinian Authority (PA) and HAMAS has worked to lock up extremist who don't maintain the ceasefire.

Earlier Israel was defending itself against sovereign Arab govt. like Egypt or Syria, but since post 1992 it has been attacking an occupied people --the Palestinians, here it lost any logic in claiming that it was fighting "sheer extradoniary numbers"

And its nothing to do with religion really, its an arab-israeli conflict. There are Jews and Israelis have protested against the govt. actions. You have to follow the local Israeli politics to know that the current govt. in Israel is a coalition of the right wing and the religious fanatic right. This is a major problem at present

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads