By David Harsanyi
Friday, March 20, 2015
After years of ginned-up conflict, Barack Obama has
finally found a pretext to change the contours of the United States-Israel
alliance. Israel’s policies might not be changing, but the administration will
“reevaluate” the relationship, anyway.
POLITICO reports that Obama may, among other things, stop
shielding Israel from international pressure at the United Nations. So
Americans can look forward to joining Sudan or Yemen—feel free to pick any
autocratic dump, really—in condemning Jews for living in their historic
homeland and relying on democratic institutions rather than a consensus at the
United Nation to decide their fate.
So our morally chaotic foreign policy is coming to a predictable
climax. At least on this issue. Obama, with no more elections to run, will now
use these threats to pressure Israel into compliance on an Iran deal that looks
more dangerous every day. That’s not surprising. What is, though, is how
self-proclaimed Zionists have co-opted some of the most absurd justifications
for throwing Israel to the wolves.
These rationalizations come in familiar flavors. There’s
the tough-love crowd. The notion here is that Democrats are the ones who truly
have Israel’s “long-term” interests at heart. And because of a deep and abiding
love for the Jewish State, Democrats are obliged to support policies that will
set Israel straight. Without the stern guidance of lefty columnists, how can we
expect one of the most technologically advanced market economies in the world
to remain a vibrant democracy?
Others argue, and have been arguing for a long time, that
the United States has a moral responsibility to distance itself from Israel
right now, because the two nations no longer share ideals about freedom and
liberalism.
Support Terror, Criticize Democracy
And if by “nation” they mean “this White House,” it’s
probably true. Here’s a refresher on the administration’s moral calculus these
days:
Out: Standing by the only democratic Middle East ally.
In: Entering into deals with theocratic terror-sponsoring
regimes that will destabilize the entire region, without the consent of the
American people.
Sure, Iran’s top ally may be dropping chlorine gas on
civilians, but the real problem in the Middle East is the Israel electorate.
“The Price Israel Must Pay: We no longer have a Netanyahu problem. We have anIsrael problem”—not a Hamas problem, or Fatah problem, not a
random-criminals-shooting-folks-in-markets problem, or a
lack-of-a-civil-society-in-the-Middle-East problem, but an Israel
problem—writes William Saltean over at Slate. If you turn on Obama—which is the
only real “problem” here—there is always a steep price.
It is true, for many Democrats this is about Israel, not
any one politician. But the irrational hatred of Benjamin Netanyahu sure does
propel things. Take this piece that strings together an array of Obama-era
mythologies about Israel by Jonathan Chait:
Netanyahu is expected to walk back his denunciation of the two-state solution, which he made in unequivocal terms. Here Netanyahu is reprising tactics employed for years by Yasser Arafat, who would issue maximal demands in Arabic and follow them with conciliatory remarks to the foreign press. Netanyahu may be best understood as Israel’s Arafat — a master of nationalist politics, yet also disastrously lacking any strategic vision, and able to survive only at the deep and possibly fatal cost to his own people’s long-term aspirations.
The above paragraph begins with an half-truth,
transitions to a baseless claim, and then ends with preposterous comparison.
Netanyahu’s statement about the Palestinian state came with a clear stipulation:
there can be no two-state solution today because conditions in Palestinian
society—a society rife with radicalism, bigotry, and corruption—will almost
surely produce another radical Islamic state next door. This is an
uncomfortable reality, but it is a reality for any prime minister.
Of course, the Arafat analogy is particularly pernicious,
not only because it is untrue, but because it compares an elected prime
minister of Israel, a man who represents a government that is formed with
consent of the people (including many Arabs), with an autocrat and founding
father of modern-day terrorism who, on many occasions, killed or targeted
Americans. A person who believes this is a clever point of comparison might
best be understood as a person who’s lost his sense of moral perspective about
the situation.
But even if we take Chait’s comparison in the narrowest
possible terms, it still doesn’t work. Arafat was offered a deal to create a
Palestinian state. Arab intermediaries and the American delegation begged him
to accept this offer because they knew there would likely never be one as
conciliatory. But he refused. Netanyahu has never been offered any conceivable
path towards a peace deal. Nor has he made any “maximal demands” in Hebrew that
he hasn’t offered in English. Israel has an open and vigorous press, in both
languages.
Obama Knows Best (?)
There is no arguing that Israel’s best future would
feature a stable Palestinian state next door. But Gaza is already a
semiautonomous mini-terror state that has no bearing on Israel’s
democracy—other than perhaps insuring Likud victories with every missile
barrage. Neither will the West Bank. Yet one of the most widely used
fearmongery arguments we’ve heard lately is that Israel’s democratic makeup is
bound to crumble if it doesn’t give the new PLO its own state before Obama’s
term is up.
Time’s Joe Klein tells us: “When I was a little boy, my
grandmother would sing me to sleep with the Israeli national anthem. It still
brings tears to my eyes.” Today, though, he writes deeply silly columns that
blame Netanyahu for introducing bigotry into Middle Eastern politics. Bibi had
the temerity to mention that Arab voters were being bussed to polls, another
statement that happened to be true—he’s sort of like the mass murder who first
dehumanizes his enemies.
Klein also says, that the “alternative to a two-state
solution is a one-state solution.” And here’s Tom Friedman in the New York
Times writing the same thing:
Having won the Israeli elections — in part by declaring that he will never permit a two state-solution between Israelis and Palestinians — it means Netanyahu will be the father of the one-state solution. And the one-state solution means that Israel will become, in time, either a non-Jewish democracy or Jewish non-democracy.
The idea that Israel is on the road to demographic
collapse if it doesn’t make a deal right now is not substantiated with data.
For decades Israelis have been hearing how they will be outnumbered as the
Jewish democracy collapses. Numbers tells a different story. Last year, you
might remember Secretary of State John Kerry also pulled the “apartheid” card.
As others have pointed out before, Israel’s population stands at around 8
million people, with 6 million Jews, and nearly 400,000 non-Jews related to
Jewish immigrants. There are around 1.7 million Israeli Arabs, which includes
Christians and Druze. Israeli Arabs are not an existential threat to Israel.
You know what is? A bunch of apocalyptic mullahs with
access to nuclear weapons. This reality, however, doesn’t seem to draw as much
concern from columnists who tear up at sound of Hatikva.
In essence, the argument these American journalists are
making is that Obama has a better grasp of the long-term needs of a Jewish
homeland than the people who live there. Netanyahu survives only on the fatal
cost to his own people’s long-term aspirations, but Obama, whose history is
littered with anti-Israel activists, he’s got Israel back.
These pundits also seem to confuse Zionism with their own
quixotic progressive idealism. It’s the kind of faux-Zionism that you’ve heard
from Peter Beinart or J-Street—a progressive outfit with no popular support
from the Jewish community but important enough for the White House to
entertain—or Hamas-defending types at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, and
so on. Zionism is a national movement to return the Jewish people to their
historic homeland in Israel. Its most pressing moral obligation, like any other
state’s, is to defend its own security and people, not to create more volatile
neighbors or to help cement Barack Obama’s legacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment