National Review Online
Friday, March 20, 2015
‘Words matter,” White House secretary Josh Earnest told
reporters today, by way of explanation for the Obama administration’s fresh,
newly intense scorn for the government of Israel.
So they do — which is why it is so disturbing that the
White House is twisting the words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
ignoring the torrent of hate and hypocrisy that has issued forth from the
Palestinian side for years, and now using its own words to drive a real wedge
between the United States and Israel. (The president did speak to Netanyahu
today but, per the official readout, specifically congratulating the prime
minister for winning a plurality of the Knesset probably didn’t help.)
Courting his supporters before the Israeli election this
week, the White House says, Netanyahu used “divisive” rhetoric and disavowed
the idea of a two-state solution, calling into question a principle that has
undergirded Israeli–Palestinian negotiations for more than two decades now.
In return, the White House is threatening to turn a blind
eye to Palestinians’ abandonment of a different principle that has undergirded
negotiations for more than two decades now. The White House says Obama will
“reevaluate” the U.S. position toward Israel at the United Nations, a threat
that means, most immediately, the U.S. could drop its opposition to U.N.
recognition of Palestinian statehood. The threat is likely empty, but publicly
airing it is an incredibly contemptuous way to treat an ally — let alone one of
our closest and most vulnerable ones.
The Palestinian Authority’s attempt to gain state-like
recognition at the U.N. (they are currently trying to join the International
Criminal Court) is a violation of the spirit of the Oslo accords, which
reserves such issues to bilateral negotiations. That was just one reason,
alongside the increasing influence of Hamas and other security problems, why
Prime Minister Netanyahu said before the election that he would not allow the
establishment of a Palestinian state on his watch.
Here were his words: “Anyone who moves to establish a
Palestinian state and evacuate territory is just giving territory away to
radical Islamic attacks against Israel. That’s the actual reality that has come
about in recent years.” So it is, which is why, when Netanyahu was then asked
whether he would agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state during his
time in office, he said no.
This is an acknowledgment of reality, not reckless
rhetoric. At worst, combined with Netanyahu’s (ill-advised) expression of
concern about high Arab turnout, it is a shadow of the kind of contempt that
Palestinian officials regularly show for Israel. Netanyahu quickly clarified
his two-state-solution comment, reemphasizing after the election that he did
not believe a Palestinian state feasible with the other side behaving as they
are, rather than disapproving of the two-state solution in theory.
President Obama, unhappy with Netanyahu’s attempts to
block a deal with Iran and generally uncomfortable with a realistic view of
Israel’s enemies, is blowing the controversy vastly out of proportion, just as
he did with Netanyahu’s address to Congress. Obama, clearly, finds no joy or
satisfaction in defending Israel on the world stage. He may not understand why
we do so at all.
But he is not likely to stop doing it entirely, given the
strong pro-Israel sentiment in this country. He is seeking a pound of flesh,
some admission from Netanyahu that will make it look like he has pushed the two
sides of the Arab–Israeli conflict closer together. (It could be, for instance,
concessions on settlement construction.)
This episode, though, will do real damage to Israel’s
trust in the United States. If President Obama understood what this meant, or
cared, he would know that his behavior is not just a betrayal of our ally and
our own values — it emboldens our enemies and does nothing to move Israel and
the Palestinians toward a secure, lasting solution. And once this crisis
passes, there is not much to look forward to: The president will return to
occasional diplomatic slights toward Israel, allowing more time for his preferred
activity, negotiating giveaways to Iran.
No comments:
Post a Comment