ICEJ Special Commentary

Behind Obama’s battering of Israel

by David Parsons

After one year in office, it seemed US President Barack Obama had learned some lessons in conducting foreign policy and was ready to back off some of his heavy handed tactics in dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It had become all too obvious that Obama had blundered by hammering away at Israel on settlements, while giving the Palestinians a free pass.

Thus, US Vice President Joe Biden paid a solidarity visit to Jerusalem in March to reassure Israeli leaders on Washington’s balanced approach to peacemaking with the Palestinians. But then the Obama administration deliberately ratcheted up the pressure again over the issue of Jewish construction in east Jerusalem and relations soured once more.

It has been manifestly unfair for the US administration to treat its closest democratic ally in the region and arguably the world in this manner. Obama has gone so far as to question Israel’s desire for peace, even while Palestinian Authority leaders are avoiding peace talks like the plague. When Netanyahu came into office last spring, PA officials from Mahmoud Abbas down unanimously said they would not talk to him “in a thousand years.” All their subsequent preconditions to talks are merely pretexts, often conveniently supplied by Washington, which has yet to hold them accountable for their intransigence.

Besides being unfair, the Obama administration has also been dishonest in its dealings with Israel. Early on, for instance, Netanyahu reminded the new Administration of the letter delivered in April 2004 by former US President George W. Bush to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon containing key American commitments to Israel regarding the Palestinian track. But US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brushed the letter aside as no longer binding, even though as a US Senator she had voted for a joint congressional resolution which endorsed the Bush letter as official US policy.

Another clear example of the dishonesty can be seen when Clinton went before the annual AIPAC policy conference in March and criticized Hamas for its incitement against Israel. Yet her comments on the incitement issue had actually been prompted by the Israeli government specifically complaining to the US State Department that PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas and prime minister Salaam Fayyad were honoring PLO terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, the leader of the notorious “Coastal Road Massacre” in 1978. Clinton is now trying to correct the record by finally confronting the PA about its own incitement, but only after being caught in an embarrassing fib.

All this has left many wondering what exactly is Obama up to with his heavy pressure on Netanyahu while coddling the Palestinians. Besides courting favor with the wider Arab/Islamic world, one commentator close to Obama recently chalked up the festering quarrel over Jewish housing in east Jerusalem to the White House wanting to bring the more dovish Opposition leader Tzipi Livni of Kadima into the coalition. That may be a welcome outcome of the arm-twisting, but the ultimate goal is two-fold.

First, the Obama administration is sending a message of “no adventurism on Iran.” By making Netanyahu sweat over a manufactured issue like the Ramat Shlomo housing approvals, Obama is signaling that Netanyahu is being kept on a short leash, meaning any unilateral Israeli actions regarding Iran will n ot be tolerated. If the Netanyahu government deems it necessary to pre-empt the growing threat of Tehran’s renegade nuclear program, no one should expect America to cover its back in trying to manage the global fallout from such actions.

Secondly, the Administration is unnecessarily battering Netanyahu in a bid to soften his opposition to a Palestinian state, which they hope to declare within Obama’s first term in office. White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel said as much to an American Jewish leader last year, according to Yediot Aharonot, and I don’t think it was a slip of the tongue.

In this regard, Obama and his team have misread the Israeli public. Obama believes Netanyahu does not truly represent the views of most Israelis, but he does. They have been conditioned by years of violence, terror and foreign pressure into being ready to give up the West Bank for peace. Yet they remain highly skeptical that there is a peace partner on the Palestinian side who can keep their end of the bargain. Obama will make an even bigger blunder if he persists in thinking the Palestinians are currently ready for a state that would live at peace with Israel.

The writer is an ordained minister and serves as media director for the
International Christian Embassy Jerusalem;   www.icej.org/

This article first appeared in the May 2010 issue of
The Jerusalem Post Christian Edition,
which is published in partnership with the ICEJ.