| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| Petraeus phones IDF chief to reassure him comments spun out of context | |
| 2010-03-26 | |
| Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the US Military's Central Command (CENTCOM), telephoned IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi on Wednesday night to reassure Israel that comments attributed to him regarding supposed Israeli intransigence were spun out of context. Last week, Petraeus testified before the Senate's Armed Services Committee. A 56-page report that CENTCOM had submitted alongside Petraeus's oral testimony caused a storm by claiming that Israeli intransigence was a problem for the US military and was fomenting conflict in the Middle East. “The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests,' the CENTCOM report read. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the [Middle East] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.' The above words, which appeared in the report but were not uttered by Petraeus in his oral testimony, were pounced upon by critics of Israel as confirmation of what many of them have said for years – that Israel is the source of instability in the region. On Wednesday, though, Petraeus poured cold water on the written testimony. In an appearance at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, he told reporters that his testimony had been spun by bloggers. “There's a 56-page document that we submitted that has a statement in it that describes various factors that influence the strategic context in which we operate, and among those we listed the Mideast peace process,' he said, according to a transcript of the press conference that appeared on the Web site of The American Spectator monthly. “We noted in there that there was a perception at times that America sides with Israel and so forth. And I mean, that is a perception. It is there. I don't think that's disputable. But I think people inferred from what that said and then repeated it a couple of times and bloggers picked it up and spun it. And I think that has been unhelpful, frankly.' Defense officials said that the defense establishment was not concerned by the possibility that the diplomatic crisis with Washington would impair defense ties. Proof, the officials said, was that an IAF and Defense Ministry delegation signed a deal this week to buy three giant Hercules military transport aircraft. The deal, which had been in the works for a year, was scheduled months ago to be signed in March, and its finalization was not connected to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit to the US, officials said.
| |
| Posted by:trailing wife on the other computer |
| #4 In other words, the original article was straight-forward propaganda, designed to cause problems between Israel and the U.S. Posted by trailing wife on the other computer Yes! "Designed to cause problems for Israel" as well as discredit Petraeus. A 'win-win' for the administration. I don't know who runs Barry's psywar campaign, but it is effective. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-26 09:37 |
| #3 About that original article in Foreign Policy magazine's website: Max Boot writes Back on March 13, terrorist groupie Mark Perry — a former Arafat aide who now pals around with Hamas and Hezbollah — posted an article on Foreign Policy’s website, claiming that General David Petraeus was behind the administration’s policy of getting tough with Israel. I tried to set the record straight, based on talking to an officer familiar with Petraeus’s thinking, that Perry’s item was a gross distortion — in fact a fraud. I noted that in Petraeus’s view, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was only one factor among many affecting U.S. interests in the region and that Israeli settlements were far from the only, or even the main, obstacle to peace. I even suggested — again, based on inside information — that the 56-page posture statement that Central Command had submitted to Congress, which stated that the Arab-Israeli conflict “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” was not the best indicator of his thinking. Better to look at what he actually told Congress — in a hearing he barely mentioned Israel (until prompted to do so) and never talked about settlements at all. In other words, the original article was straight-forward propaganda, designed to cause problems between Israel and the U.S. |
| Posted by: trailing wife on the other computer 2010-03-26 09:18 |
| #2 Oh dear. Are the DoD officials to undergo a severe tongue lashing from Secretary of State Clinton, too? must.resist.cheap.DADT.jab. /going preemptively to my room |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-03-26 08:31 |
| #1 comments attributed to him regarding supposed Israeli intransigence were spun out of context. .....by the administration controlled MSM! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-03-26 03:25 |