By Seth Mandel
Monday, January 06, 2025
Antony Blinken’s interview
with the New York Times is like the glossary review section at
the end of a textbook chapter on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Although the interviewer, an aggressively overcaffeinated
Lulu Garcia-Navarro, constantly used or encountered words she didn’t
understand, the most important term came from Secretary of State Blinken:
“daylight.”
The concept of “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel is
well-known. Blinken’s use of it in this interview served as a reminder of the
world’s great blind spot when it comes to the Middle East. Namely, the refusal
to assign the Palestinians any agency.
In the interview, here is how Blinken described a key
impediment to a hostage deal in Gaza:
“[W]henever there has been public daylight between the
United States and Israel and the perception that pressure was growing on
Israel, we’ve seen it: Hamas has pulled back from agreeing to a cease-fire and
the release of hostages. And so there are times when what we say in private to
Israel where we have a disagreement is one thing, and what we’re doing or
saying in public may be another. But that’s in no small measure because with
this daylight, the prospects of getting the hostage and cease-fire deal over
the finish line become more distant.”
The point: Pressure on Israel can change Israeli
behavior, yes; but it will also change the Palestinians’ behavior—and do
so in ways that make it harder to reach a settlement.
Are policymakers motivated by their desire for peace and
a durable end to hostilities? Or are they motivated by antagonism toward
Israel? How a person sees the concept of “daylight” will definitively answer
the question. The Times interviewer, like most of her colleagues and
peers, sees Israel as the only actor in the conflict whose behavior the U.S.
should be working to change.
This is morally grotesque, of course. But it is the basis
for the majority of media coverage and activism surrounding the Arab-Israeli
conflict. And therefore it must be repeatedly called out and challenged.
Contrast Blinken’s use of “daylight” with that of the
previous president he served, Barack Obama.
In July 2009, Obama met with American Jewish leaders at
the White House. He offered
some revisionist history of the George W. Bush administration’s work in the
Middle East:
“Look at the past eight years. During those eight years,
there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When
there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our
credibility with the Arab states.”
The absurdity of this statement made it an instant news
story at the time. During the Bush administration, and with the Bush
administration’s encouragement, Israel quite famously ended its occupation of
Gaza in its entirety, and—this part might not have happened without the Bush
administration’s involvement—disengaged from parts of the West Bank, too. In
concert with the Bush administration, Israel gave the Palestinians their
largest onetime grant of sovereignty in the history of the conflict.
In other words, Bush was both unambiguously supportive of
Israel and successful at achieving breakthroughs in the conflict that
benefited the Palestinians. Obama, meanwhile, went on to have the least success
of any president in the Middle East since JFK. That was no coincidence.
What Bush understood was that only a policy of “no
daylight” could have brought about the full extent of Ariel Sharon’s
disengagement—specifically, the part including the West Bank. What Obama didn’t
understand was that his own subsequent policy of daylight paralyzed the
conflict, because Israel did make concessions but the Palestinians dug
in their heels, preventing those concessions from turning into progress.
The truth is that it’s not difficult to get Israel to
make concessions, but only under certain conditions is it even possible to move
the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Donald Trump came into office and
reversed Obama’s daylight policy, and by the end of his term Israel and Arab
states had signed historic recognition deals.
Whether there is daylight or no daylight, Israel will
make moves for peace—because it wants peace. But only when there is no daylight
will the Arab world make reciprocal moves.
This was Blinken’s point. Every time there was daylight
between the U.S. and Israel, Hamas backed off from agreeing to a cease-fire and
releasing hostages.
Putting daylight between the U.S. and Israel is
satisfying to anti-Israel media activists. But it does nothing for the
Palestinians, nothing for peace, and nothing for America.
No comments:
Post a Comment