Home » Israel » Ire no longer fuels US actions in Iraq, as word has been reserved for new relations with Israel

Ire no longer fuels US actions in Iraq, as word has been reserved for new relations with Israel

Nor is ire an option in south Lebanon. (Photo by Amelia Opalinska.)

Nor is ire an option in south Lebanon. (Photo by Amelia Opalinska.)

During a recent visit to the New York Times website, I was invited to switch to the new “Global Edition” of the online paper, which promised “International news from a global perspective.” I complied to find that the Global Edition was merely the International Herald Tribune, and that despite the promised change in perspective there was still an article entitled “U.S. Weighs Tactics on Israeli Settlement,” in which one of the tactics is summed up as: “When asked on Thursday what he would do if Mr. Netanyahu continued to balk at a settlement freeze, Mr. Obama said he was not yet ready to offer an ‘or else.’”

The Times article excuses threats as irrelevant in the case of such freezes, given that “even symbolic actions that would publicly show the United States’ ire with Israel, its longtime ally, would be a sharp departure from the previous administration.” The article provides examples of symbolic actions such as abstaining from an absolute commitment to every Israeli whim in the context of the United Nations; not provided is the pool of vocabulary words from which was chosen the term “ire.” As for the previous administration, it is accused of having “limited its distaste with Israel’s settlement expansions to carefully worded diplomatic statements that called them ‘unhelpful,’” despite the fact that the ire-rich terminology of the new administration included Hillary Clinton’s reference earlier this year to planned home demolitions in East Jerusalem as unhelpful.

A March New York Times article maintained that Clinton “spoke out against Israeli plans,” while according to a Haaretz article from the same period she “blasted Israel’s plans”; confusion over the amount of ire displayed may have been due to the fact that the mere speaking out against Israeli plans occurred on the Times’ traditional website and not in editions offering international news from a global perspective. A notable shift in perspective was meanwhile registered in the recent article weighing options for symbolic action, which concluded that “[p]lacing conditions on loan guarantees to Israel, as the first President Bush did nearly 20 years ago, is not under discussion.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: