It has been almost exactly six weeks since this space was graced with a post arguing for throwing America's friends in Taiwan over the side.

I doubt David Rothkopf has any relatives or friends in Taiwan, which probably accounts for approximately 100% of the difference between his perspective on East Asia and his take on the Middle East. Not that I question his devotion to the cause of national interest. I just wonder which nation he's most concerned with.

Here's a prediction that his poo-pooing of the "fake" crisis between Washington and Tel Aviv will turn out to be entirely consistent with the position Israeli government officials will take, and that the government they serve will spare no effort to sustain a settlement policy that serves no American interest while harming us in at least two important ways. First, it inspires potential terrorist recruits across the Arab world and in several non-Arab Muslim countries, most of whom will never get near Israel but can find Americans to attack much more easily. Secondly, it underlines and puts in bold type a narrative of American helplessness, of a United States without the will to do anything but approve anything the Israeli government chooses to do.

For the record, Taiwan faces an existential threat substantially greater than anything Israel does at the moment. Taiwan is also not insisting on expanding its territory on land regarded by all its neighbors as belonging to someone else, or doing so while taking almost three billions dollars in American aid every year. Nor has the Taiwanese government deliberately insulted any American officials lately.

David Rothkopf the realist therefore regards Taiwan as a nuisance, and the Israeli government as an endearing group of flawed human beings entitled to unconditional American support, because otherwise the United States might look weak. Tough on our friends, it seems, he has no problem with. Tough on his friends is something else.

I like Rothkopf's postings, even-though I agree with fewer than half the stuff he writes. But Zathras sums up Rothkopf's chief mistake, the mistake that other Israeli-boosters make - thinking that what is best for Israel is automatically best for America. It is not in American interest for Israel to continue expanding settlements, since that makes it tougher for our Arab allies to cooperate with us in other areas.

As far as Iran goes, it is not in America's interest for Iran to become a nuclear power. BUT, it is also not in America's interest to launch a war to keep them from getting it. America can use containment to keep Tehran in check, just as it successfully did the much larger and more powerful Soviet Union. While Israel may demand that America take every step to preserve Tel Aviv's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, there is no reason why some kid from California has to risk his life so that a Russian can re-invent himself as an Israeli, and settle into the West Bank.

This is a disappointing post- it's more of the same conventional beltway wisdom that ends up propping up an untenable status quo in the Mideast. At the heart of this is the same old, tired reasoning which has tied the hands of almost every administration- that despite the US giving more economic aid to Israel than any other country, despite favored "trade" status with respect to defense equipment, despite constantly turning a blind eye to Israel's ongoing violations of international law regarding settlements, despite ignoring Israel's human rights abuses and despite pretending that Israel has no nuclear arsenal which perhaps plays a role in any purported nuclear arms race in the region, we should never publicly question or criticize the Israeli government, even when it treats the U.S. like it's personal rent boy and undermines the administration's efforts at re-starting negotiations.

The attitude of 'oh, Obama is just over-reacting' is precisely why Israel will continue have this "special" relationship be so one-sided. Friendship goes both ways but lately, it's hard to see what Bibi has been willing to give the US recently. In fact, as some commentators in Israel have noted this incident with Biden is less indicative of accidental bad timing and more indicative of the fact that Bibi and Likud don't really support a two state solution despite being reluctantly forced to say "two state" out loud. Although most in the Beltway don't want to really admit it, the ongoing settlement construction is a HUGE problem, as James Baker stated all those years ago when he was SOS. However, openly confronting the settlement issue is the new third rail of politics and most are truly unwilling to deal with that problem head on because a confrontation ensues, and we can't have *that* and because despite US policy stating that continued settlement expansion beyond the green line is unacceptable (and illegal), the US govt essentially funds and quietly promotes their ongoing existence and pro-settler groups give handsomely to members of Congress who hold their tongues. With each passing year more and more land is appropriated to Israel, including land which many Palestinians had wanted to be part their state, which of course is why they continue building them. And with each settlement that expands outward Hamas and other radical groups are emboldened and gain support as the international community sits idly by knowing full well that it's nothing but a blatant land grab.

We are always very quick to point out when we think the Palestinians are working to undermine peace- as we should- so why shouldn't Israel perhaps be confronted, oh, maybe once every 25 years or so with their self-defeating attempts to undermine the peace process?

The unpleasant truth which no one wants really wants to confront refers to something that one commenter already said- there are times when US interests and Israeli interests diverge and that is becoming more and more apparent although to say so out loud is tantamount to treason against Israel. Israel's actions directly affect our security interests, as with any other nation whether friend or foe, and when Israel acts in a way that is contrary to our interests we have to be able to speak out. To not do so is irresponsible.

Also, the US military is finally saying out loud what everyone has always known- this constant cycle of violence and the perception that Israel and the US are virtually indistinguishable is not helping us in the region as we wage our wars and try to win "hearts and minds."

Unless Jerusalem is on the table, there can be no settlement. Secondly, if illegal settlement in East Jerusalem continues, Jerusalem is clearly not on the table. Thirdly, if there is no settlement or even real negotiations, US lives, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan are in increased danger. Finally US interests must prevail over Israeli interests. We clearly have the leverage. Without the US financial and military assistance and the diplomatic cover by the US in the UN and elsewhere for the outrageously illegal policies, Israel cannot survive. For its own sake, Israel must be brought to heel by the US. Obama must make a stand somewhere, sometime, on some issue. He is losing support in the US not for any specific policy, but rather for his lack of spine and leadership. This is a good place to start.

It is a very unacademic and superficial post by David Rothkopf, as always. I dont see how a professor of international relations talks about Israel as a "friend" of US? Friendship is a personal matter and states dont make friends except some close interests on certain matters, which is also changable.

The Carnegie Endowment and other "think tanks" whicha are overwhelmingly Israeli-oriented given the financial backing of Israeli groups and "academics" do give a distorted view of what is going in the Middle East and to what extent it serves the US interests by the fake narrative of "eternal friendship and unshakable bonds" beween US and Israel. The hollow words dont change anything on the ground and when US feels the strategic pain as a result of its "friend"'s deliberate actions the US interests get harmed in a strategic way. It is so strange why the US foreign policy makers are so passive in the face of such threats.

I think I read somewhere the best thing at this point would be for the person responsible for the gaffe to resign or be fired so both parties can step back from this stupidity.

I find it astonishing that someone who is a serious student of IR so casually falls back on the old myth of Muslim leaders in the ME merely being lunatics who cannot be reasoned with on the basis of national interest when he says:
"(Engagement was dependent on the other side wanting to engage back. Containment is dependent on the government or some other rational actor exercising effective control over all nuclear warheads. Neither precondition will, I'm afraid, prove to have been sufficiently certain to warrant betting our vital interests on it.)"

Does he honestly think that? I suggest he read historian of the ME Stephen Humphreys' book "Between Memory and Desire". Hell, if you type "myth middle eastern madman" into google search the relevant chapter from his book can be read for free.

The other thing that's been bothering me about this piece is its characterization of a fresh violation of international law (remember, even the US agrees that building new settlements is illegal) as a kind of whoop-si-daisy mistake. The "mistake" wasn't the timing, the mistake is continuously expanding settlements in what is supposed to be a Palestinian state. Oops indeed.

I am not surprised by Rothkopf's latest article about defending Israel and effort to downplay Israel's latest attempt to slap USA in the face as a mere 'screwup'. I wonder where does Rothkopf's love for his own country hides when 'screw-ups' like this embarrasses staunch Israeli ally like Biden. I guess embarrassing US vice president is alright as long as it is done by Israel.

Anyway, Israel knows what they are doing. They know Obama will back down. They Have AIPAC and people like Rothkopf to justify their actions no matter how detrimental it is for America's interest. As some readers mentioned earlier, what is good for Israel is not good for USA. Not anymore. Time for a realistic foreign policy where America's interest takes the lead over anyone else's. Time for military leaders to make sure Washington knows that American life should not be sacrificed because of Israel.

This event has the effect of more clearly defining the American relationship with Israel on the world stage as the dysfunctional parent-spoiled child archetype. The child acts out, the parent scolds and as announced today, the parent accommodates the child days later by essentially apologizing for the scolding, enabling the child to repeat the action in the future. Rothkopf's column epitomizes the rationale of this interaction. The sad irony is that American taxpayers are paying for Israel's settlement expansion (to the tune of $3 billion/yr), sabotaging their own foreign policy interests with Iran and surrounding Arab countries and fueling jihadist recruitment against their own military abroad.

So a bunch of Arab/Muslim leaders are telling Obama that he must do something about the evil infidel Jews, and only then will they cooperate.

A) This is immoral, especially during a time when Iran is openly threatening to eradicate Israel and denying the Holocaust, etc. Once Israel is eliminated, maybe the Arabs will arbitrarily demand that another nation be demonized. Will you go along with that, too?

B) There is absolutely no proof that this is true. The Arab leaders use Israel as a bogeyman to explain to their people why they are living in such squalor/misery (while the leaders live in luxury, of course). Let's make the commentators on this board happy and pretend that Iran will drop a nuke on Israel tomorrow (that would kill millions of Arabs, too, but these details aren't important to the real haters). Tell me, what exactly would change in the behavior of Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Egypt? Give me specifics.

C) The theory that Israel is inflaming Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq is pretty laughable. This presupposes that these fighters don't know about the pre-existing relationship between the U.S. and Israel, but somehow they do know about Ramat Shlomo. Yeah, right. It also presupposes that they are more upset about Israel building houses than they are about Americans killing their brothers and cousins, etc. Yeah, right.

D) Israel isn't a strategic ally of the U.S. and isn't "useful"? Yeah, right. If the U.S. wants to disconnect from the Mossad and its intelligence, and close down the many military interests supported by the deal with Israel (Israel gets huge amounts of aid, but according to the contract must use the majority of it on American products), OK. A big part of America's cachet in this part of the world is the feeling among Arabs that America can deliver Israel if necessary. If America loses that chip...

E) Funny how people love talking about Israeli "apartheid." It seems to me that it is the Palestinians who are insisting that their future homeland be "Judenrein." Why did every single last Jew have to leave Gaza? So what if Jews are building in Jerusalem? Why can't a future Palestinian capital be a mixed city with Jews and Arabs? Israel has more than a million Israeli Arabs within her borders, and has Arabs in govt. and Arabs on the Supreme Court, etc. Who is setting-up the real apartheid?

first: In what way does the announcement of the building of more illegal settlements seems a gaffe more than a calculated move? Didn't Netanyahu's own prime minster, who issued the statement, know Biden was in the country? Your misleading link to the NY Times in no way implies that it was a gaffe.

Second: No one really believes that Obama is aiming for peace talks to boost his foreign policy achievements in the short term. That is just preposterous, it's been a kafkian can of worms for the better part of the last century. And it's only getting worse.

Finally: Your reasoning it's that the US wont be able to stop Iran from going nuclear so we might as well let Israel wreak havoc in the region and ridicule our vice president. It's not only defeatist and unpatriotic, by this logic, in wich you claim to know the future, you can justify practically anything.

We have some friends in Israel, but Israel is not our friend.

We have different roles and different national interests. A friend would recognize that and try to accommodate the other's needs.

We provide the stabilizing security force in the Middle East that allows our oil-dependent global economy to exist. Israel benefits from this, not only for energy supplies but in the greater security of its own existence.

Settlers are not necessary to Israel. They are in fact bad for Israel itself, security wise, and for the US with its wider responsibilities. A friend would at least delay the approval of more construction in the settlements in order to accommodate our efforts to solve the existential problems confronting us both together.

This announcement of fresh building was not merely inept - it was a slap in our face. Not from an enemy, but from a supposed ally. If we ignore it, we lose face before the international community and credibility in the region, where we have invested so much.

We have interests in Israel. On some issues Israel is an ally. But it is high time that pundits such as Rothkopf drop the invocation of the norms of interpersonal morality to bind us to Israel no matter how she behaves. Israel is not our friend.