From the end of history to the end of ideology

It's time for the shortened version of my weekend column. This week, Aluf Benn was in Washington and I was in L.A. Read the full version here.

Ideology


The change in ideas that American policy is now undergoing can be summed up in a few words: "From the end of history to the end of ideology." The belief that the United States is an omnipotent power, and that after defeating the Communist empire of evil, it must spread the gospel of liberal capitalism throughout the world has given way to depression and despair in the wake of the complications in Iraq. Suddenly, the Americans have discovered that there are limits to their power. The national reckoning of conscience has led to a gloomy conclusion: President George W. Bush's adherence to an almost messianic ideology is what led to a damaging and unnecessary adventure.

Experts, diplomats and historians who only a few years ago believed in the power of the United States to transform the Middle East into a paradise of peace and prosperity are now bewailing "the end of American dominance" in the region. As they see it, the double failure of the U.S. army in Iraq and the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon embodies the depth of the fall, and the rise of the counter-bloc of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Hitches

Two possible hitches threaten prime ministers' visits abroad. One is an unnecessary slip of the tongue that causes image damage; the other is a terror attack. Olmert got hit by both. In the briefing for journalists after his meeting with Bush, he described Brigadier General Gal Hirsch, who resigned from the IDF, as an Israeli hero, and with reference to Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, he made do with "I haven't read the criticism of him." The journalists concluded that Olmert was evading giving support to Halutz and that is what they wrote. The prime minister had to phone the chief of staff next day and promise his backing.

The fatal firing of the Qassam in Sderot caught Olmert in Los Angeles, before a meeting with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Several times, Sharon was forced to cut short visits abroad because of terror attacks. But with respect to image, there is a difference between a terror attack that occurs in the middle of a meeting at the White House and a terror attack that catches you in Hollywood.

Recognition

The outgoing ambassador to Washington, Danny Ayalon, went to bid good-bye to the America president and the vice president. After four and a half years, they are already old acquaintances. Ayalon, as was reported yesterday in Haaretz, intends to prolong this acquaintance a bit longer. He proposed to Bush the establishment in Israel of an institute in his name. The president gave this his blessing. Now donors must be sought, but Ayalon is convinced that money isn't going to be the problem.

At their meeting on Tuesday, the departing ambassador compared the president, who still has two years left, to Winston Churchill. A popular comparison: This week opposition leader Likud MK Benjamin Netanyahu also resorted to the British prime minister when he spoke in Los Angeles, on the previous day, about the Iranian threat. Ayalon told Bush that he, like Churchill, is standing alone in face of an empire of evil that is arming itself. Bush no doubt loved hearing this, as he admires Churchill. Who doesn't?

Like Ayalon, who wants to immortalize Bush in Israel because he believes that there has never been such a friendly president, Olmert too believes that Bush is a true friend of Israel. In his speech at the GA, he had to repeat this twice, because the American Jewish audience did not react with suitably loud applause the first time. Olmert gave up only after he did not succeed the second time.

Dilemma

One can guess that this is the message that Olmert received from Bush: I share your anxiety about the Iranian threat, but America is not able and does not want to act alone. In his speech, the prime minister said that Bush's determination "to prevent this most serious of developments is unquestionable. But America must have the support of the international community." In other words, the president told him that his hands are tied, that without the Europeans and the Russians it is impossible to do anything. The chance that they will take to the task of destroying the Iranian atomic installations looks like zero at the moment. No wonder Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted this week of the approaching completion of the atomic program.

The significance of this is that the Israeli leadership will soon be facing a difficult dilemma: whether to gamble on a military action against Iran, the operational possibility of which is not clear, or to accustom the public gradually to life in the shadow of the bomb. The politicians' rhetoric is pushing for a confrontation. But strategic experts in Israel and in the United States are warning against this.

GA

On Tuesday an American journalist sat at a table and chewed the end of his pen; the deadline was soon. "How many times can I write that this year, too, the GA was boring?" he asked his interlocutor. The intentions of the convention organizers were good, perhaps even necessitated by circumstances. The war in Lebanon diverted attention from local concerns to strategic questions and they changed the program for the GA, transforming it into an event that was entirely about Israel's security. But they did not succeed in transforming it into an exciting, fascinating and vibrant event. For years now the GA has been limping, and there is no savior. The time has come for it to undergo a facelift.


More Diplomacy on Rosner's Domain:

Bush gives go-ahead for 'Bush Center' in Israel

Fascinating and scary: Netanyahu on Iran

What was Olmert thinking when he talked about Iraq?