The Obama Administration has insisted that Israel freeze settlement activity in the West Bank. A significant Israeli diplomat dared to speak out on how Israel’s failure to implement a settlement freeze is hurting their relationship with their most important ally. He was recalled. Let’s keep an eye on what happens to Mr. Tamir.

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz, August 9, 2009

The Foreign Ministry on Saturday summoned for consultation a senior Israeli diplomat who in a confidential memo criticized the government for harming ties with the U.S. last week.

A ministry statement said that Israel’s consul-general in Boston, Nadav Tamir, would arrive in Jerusalem next week to give a clarification to the ministry’s director-general.

The memo, which was addressed to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, stressed that the public spat with the U.S. over the issue of a settlements freeze has alienated a significant number of American Jewish supporters.

Tamir, a veteran well respected diplomat, wrote the memo under the heading “melancholy thoughts on Israel-U.S. relations.”

Tamir’s missive is considered unusual given the blunt, pointed nature of the criticism against the premier’s policies.

“The manner in which we are conducting relations with the American administration is causing strategic damage to Israel,” Tamir wrote. “The distance between us and the U.S. administration has clear consequences for Israeli deterrence.”

“There are American and Israeli political elements who oppose [U.S. President Barack] Obama on an ideological basis and who are ready to sacrifice the special relationship between the two countries for the sake of their own political agendas,” the consul general in Boston wrote.

“There has always been a discrepancy in the approaches of both states [on the issue of settlements], but there was always a level of coordination between the governments,” Tamir wrote. “Nowadays, there is a sense in the United States that Obama is forced to deal with the obduracy of the governments in Iran, North Korea, and Israel.”

“The administration is making an effort to lower the profile of the disagreements, and yet it is [Israel] that is the source which is highlighting the differences,” Tamir wrote.

Tamir accused Netanyahu of endangering American Jewish backing for Israel by publicly sparring with the Obama administration over construction of Jewish housing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

A spokesperson for Netanyahu issued a statement to Channel 10 which accused Tamir of violating protocol by expressing “political views” against the premier.

Tamir refused a Haaretz request for comment. The Israeli consulate in Boston said the memorandum is an internal Foreign Ministry document that was not for the media’s consumption.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told the Associated Press late Thursday, “We don’t comment on leaked reports.”

In a bid to jumpstart the moribund Middle East peace process, the Obama administration has repeated its demand that Israel cease construction in West Bank settlements. The policy is a sharp departure from the tone and substance of Israel-U.S. relations during the presidency of George W. Bush.

The “Cash for Clunkers” program may be the most creative policy initiative we have seen come from government in a long time. The effect is dynamic and the implementation is simple. For there to be opposition to this bill is mind boggling. In 2003 we saw Bush and his Republican allies pass a tax break (between $75,000 and $100,000) for businesses who purchased a vehicle that weighed 6000 pounds or more. I’m sure a lot of these vehicles are being traded in for the current “Cash for Clunkers” program. The two mindsets are diametrically in opposition and represent the backward thinking of conservatives and the forward imagination of liberals. This 2003 bill encouraged American automobile manufacturers (or at least reinforced their misguided production strategies) to crank out big gas guzzling vehicles. The collusion between the two ended up being a Faustian bargain that would ultimately cripple the American automobile sector.

America’s addiction to foreign oil is unpatriotic. Think of the nations in the world who have oil as the centerpiece of their economy. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran and Russia are just some of these petroleum dominated authoritarian states. As the price of oil has risen these nations have become less democratic. The money derived from the production of oil has made the governments of these states less dependent on taxation from its citizens. If a government does not have to rely on public excises to run its nation, it is less likely to grant its citizenry representation. This is happening across the board in these states. And these countries interests are becoming more in opposition to our own.

The United States makes up about 3% of the world’s population but we use 25% of the world’s energy. We are a bloated energy hog. The fact that we use such a significant amount of fuel creates a dilemma as South and East Asia emerge from their slumber. It makes it harder for the US to restrain the energy needs of India and China when all they are doing is attempting to become us.

Sending a signal to those outside our country is just a byproduct of this program. The car initiative does so many things at the same time. It brings gas guzzlers off the road and replaces them with energy efficient cars. This not only reduces the amount of gas we use but also reduces our carbon footprint. It also serves two purposes in regard to the automobile industry. It obviously boosts sales but it also helps validate the need of these companies to produce cars that get better gas mileage. But perhaps the greatest thing the “Cash for Clunkers” does that isn’t talked about is the psychological dimension. Everyone is aware of the rationale for the program and clear thinking Americans are seeing that the nation is moving away from large cars. It is rare when government positively alters the imagination of the nation and rarer still when government comes up with a program that does so much for a relatively small amount of money.

The reform of health care in this country has become a causus belli (cause of war). Circling in news reports or on the internet are videos showing lunatics shouting at politicians during town hall meetings as if their visceral reaction is a template for how the rest of America is feeling about the reform. It isn’t.  If any of these crazies would take the time to turn their TV off of Fox News and do a little research they would find changing health care coverage is in the best interest of most people in this country.

The first issue someone needs to understand is why would the free market be the best instrument to run health care? Is it good to have a company determine the future of your continuing health care needs? Is there an insurance company out there who really gives a damn about you, especially if you become a profit liability? In other words, should profitability be a component of health? Finally, what recourse does anyone have if an insurance company refuses to cover them?

Many who are opposed to reforming health care and the single payer system cite the fact the US has the best health care in the world. The reality is we don’t have the best care in the world, we have the best medical technology in the world. With much of this technology being developed in universities, this aspect of our health care system will not change if the system itself changes.

According to the World Health Organization the US ranks 37th in overall health, right behind the likes of Morocco, Chile and Costa Rica even though the United States ranks first in health expenditure per capita. As for life expectancy, the US ranks 24th. Why does the US spend upwards of 7% more on GDP for health care than those who have socialized medicine yet get less in return for our investment? The answer has a lot to do with the profit margin. Should we live in a nation where capitalism is the driving force behind the health of our citizens? If we trust the military to protect us (and it is a government institution) then what is wrong with the government protecting us through a single payer health care service that runs parallel to the private one; that acts as a competitor to the current private insurance oligopoly?

The people that are screaming at congressmen in these town hall meetings are not doing a service to anyone, especially the middle class. Shouting down those who represent them is no substitute for open dialogue. Take a lesson from Charlie Rose and not from Bill O’Reilly. There are many of us out there who are waiting for the United States to catch up to the other 26 countries (most of them socialist) whose level of health care is better than ours.

The region’s only democracy Israel’s proponents decry. Is this the type of democracy we want to support? It is time to cut loose this alliance.