Negotiating what with whom?
Does Austin not think Israel is trying to do that? What would make it “possible” sooner rather than later? Does he think that talking to Hamas will do it? Just this month, U.S. officials said Hamas senior leader Yahya Sinwar is the primary impediment to a deal. And again, to be fair to Austin, he goes where the president goes, and U.S. President Joe Biden said the country is “doubling down” on negotiations.Biden’s betrayal of Israel is clear weakness masquerading as policy
Instead of doubling down, the administration should try a different path—one with which the secretary of defense should be familiar.
In 1939, following years of belligerence and the Anschluss, Nazi Germany launched World War II with the invasion of Poland. The Blitzkrieg followed in May 1940. Then Dunkirk, the French surrender, the Battle of Britain, Operation Barbarossa and Stalingrad. The Axis surrendered in North Africa in May 1943.
Maybe that was enough. Maybe the Allies should have sued for a negotiated settlement, offering the Germans … what? Autonomy for France and a promise never to take back Alsace? It was, after all, largely German-speaking and not terribly happy with France anyhow.
Then, the siege of Leningrad ended in the east and Italy surrendered in the west; followed by D-Day and the liberation of Paris.
Maybe that was the time to offer the Nazis a deal they could live with; after all, a lot of civilians had already been killed.
While the Soviets moved westward, the Allies moved east. The Germans launched the Battle of the Bulge in December of 1944, intending to split the Allied forces and allow the Germans to encircle the Allied armies and force them to negotiate a peace treaty in Germany’s favor.
Maybe they’d only keep half the concentration camps.
The Allies kept going and on May 7, 1945, Germany surrendered. Unconditionally. VE Day was on May 8.
President Franklin Roosevelt was a very mixed bag for Jews, to put it kindly. But on unconditional surrender, he was right, opposing half-measures for temporary quiet in Europe that might have been mistaken for “peace.”
Back to the present: Negotiations work best when the parties agree on an endgame and discuss, even acrimoniously, how to get there. Israel seeks security for its people; the removal of the military and political power of Hamas and now Hezbollah as well; and the return of the hostages. As long as Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and friends believe the endgame is the destruction of Israel, their surrender is necessary.
There was nothing then and there is nothing now to negotiate with evil.
A refresher course on how we got here is apparently necessary for a White House that seems to have forgotten.Michael Oren: Israel Pays a Price for Delaying Its Retaliation against Iran
Hamas broke a cease-fire to launch the war with Israel more than a year ago with its barbaric invasion from Gaza.
Hezbollah, in a show of support, began its daily barrage of rockets and drones the very next day, forcing more than 60,000 Israelis to evacuate from their homes along the Lebanon border.
They still can’t go home, and Israel is still taking incoming fire from all sides, with Iran playing the role of puppet master and financier.
The mullahs are also firing on Israel, yet the White House is insisting all Israeli retaliation be modest.
Indeed, Biden reportedly extracted a promise from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s response will not hit Iran’s oil fields or its nuclear facilities.
The argument against striking the oil fields is that taking Iran’s production off the global market would drive up prices everywhere.
The last thing Dems want is a spike in gasoline and heating oil prices as voters make their choice.
Perilous duel with Iran
The reason for the American ban on striking Iran’s nuclear facilities is less clear, although it surely reflects Biden’s constant fear of escalation.
It’s the same fear that has kept our ally Ukraine in a bloody stalemate with Russia.
Michael Oren, the former Israeli ambassador, likens the tit-for-tat limitation to a boxing strategy known as the “rope-a-dope.”
He cautions that “the knockout punch, the haymaker, is the Iranian nuclear weapon.”
Oren, writing in The Times of Israel, adds: “the only question is whether Israel is prepared to deliver ours first.”
That’s the crunch of the argument that Israel should strike the nuke plants before Iran gets a bomb and the missile to deliver it.
The clock is ticking, with some reports saying the mullahs could reach that point within weeks.
Netanyahu has often said Israel will never allow a nuclear-armed Iran because the mullahs have made it clear that eliminating Israel is their aim.
One former Iranian official even called Israel a “one bomb country,” meaning that’s all Iran would need.
Although Israel is said to be still debating how it will respond to Iran’s latest attack, it has greatly diminished both Hamas and Hezbollah and thus made Iran more vulnerable.
But Oren argues that a stalemate offers insufficient protection because Iran could throw its nuke punch without notice.
“Now is our chance to strike,” he concludes.
“We may not get another.”
In a piece Mosaic published exactly one year ago today, Jonathan Schachter praised American military and rhetorical support for Israel, but also warned of the dangers of a “bear hug,” whereby U.S. aid becomes a tool for preventing the Jewish state from taking necessary actions to defend itself. Michael Oren fears Israel now finds itself in a similar situation in the wake of Iran’s October 1 missile attack, resulting in
a prolonged delay in Israel’s response that threatens our security no less than the missiles themselves. With each passing day of inaction, Israel’s casus belli grows weaker. If and when Israel acts, the world will scarcely remember why.
What, besides avoiding further friction with the White House, does Israel have to gain by waiting? . . . Can we use the American administration’s fear of our response to Iran to secure vital concessions from Washington?
One such concession would be the president’s agreement not to oppose Israel’s implementation of General Giora Eiland’s plan to declare northern Gaza a closed military zone and then trade territory for Hamas’s release of the hostages. Another concession would be a presidential commitment to intervene militarily against Iran’s nuclear plants once they enrich uranium above 60 percent. Yet another concession would be America’s agreement to sell us long-range strategic bombers capable of dropping 15,000 kilogram bunker-buster bombs from a height that Iran’s defenses cannot reach. Such a sale would say to the Iranians “we won’t bomb your facilities this time but we have the means to do so effectively in the future.”
In the past two days, as if to confirm Oren’s suspicions, the U.S. has begun transfer of the THAAD missile-defense system to Israel while reportedly extracting a promise that Israel will not attack Iran’s oil infrastructure or nuclear program. As to what Israel is getting in return, Washington also appears to be pressuring Jerusalem not to go through with the Eiland plan.