June 10, 2014
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=5120
 |
The gloves are off. The White
House has now unequivocally designated Israel as the scapegoat and is
meting out punishment for the disastrous outcome of the peace
negotiations it initiated. The process began in March when President
Obama publicly lambasted Prime Minister Netanyahu in a brutal and
offensive manner the day before their scheduled meeting in Washington.
It climaxed last week when the White House reneged on its commitment to
Israel, announcing that it would continue business as usual with the new
PA government after the merger with the genocidal Hamas, the terrorist
organization which remains utterly committed to the destruction of
Israel.
Prior to this, administration
spokesmen had been campaigning behind the scenes to undermine the
standing of Israel with the American public. That Israel had frozen
settlement construction for nine months and conceded to an abhorrent
release of bloody Palestinian terrorists were facts they simply ignored.
Conversely, the Palestinian refusal to make a single concession or
agree under any circumstances to an end of conflict was rarely
mentioned.
Even following the announcement
of the PA-Hamas union, Secretary of State John Kerry continued blaming
Israel, making bizarre predictions about it becoming an “apartheid
state”, which followed his earlier warnings of an impending “third
intifada” and “international boycotts” - all of which he subsequently
retracted.
Kerry’s views were echoed by
his envoy, Martin Indyk, whose feral hatred of Netanyahu should have
disqualified him from assuming any mediating role. When Netanyahu agreed
to the wretched terrorist release, he made it clear to both the US and
the PA that construction in the settlements would resume. Yet, in a
series of “background” and open briefings, Indyk laid the primary blame
for the collapse of the peace negotiations on Israel for having
announced building tenders for 700 homes, not in some obscure or
isolated settlement, but in Gilo, a suburb existing for over 40 years in
the heart of Jewish East Jerusalem. And so it was that this
“provocative action”, the “poof” which scuttled negotiations, became the
basis for condemning Israel by the administration.
To make matters worse,
unsubstantiated allegations were circulated that Israel was engaging in
massive espionage activity against the United States. Despite angry
disclaimers from Netanyahu and leading government officials, the
Administration failed to refute the charges which were even used to
justify denying Israel eligibility for the US Visa Waiver Program.
However, with Obama’s current
catastrophic ratings and the impending congressional elections, it was
assumed - mistakenly - that at least in the short term, the White House
would avoid a frontal confrontation and merely give Europeans the wink
to intensify the pressure and avoid a frontal confrontation.
But the Administration shocked
Israel by accepting the new PA-Hamas government even before the
consummation of the union. This was in flagrant breach of former
undertakings, betraying its long-standing ally by announcing
disingenuously that it would work with the new PA- Hamas government, as
long as it “abides by the principles mandated by the US”. Yet, far from
renouncing terror, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal boasted that “the
reconciliation will actually consolidate the resistance… from one of
intifada to another until the liberation of Palestine”.
The US initiative was clearly
designed to pave the way for Israel’s further global isolation. It was
immediately endorsed by the European Union, the United Nations, the UK
and France and of course China, Russia and India all of whom praised the
union as an important step towards “Palestinian reconciliation”.
AIPAC, the Conference of
Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and other Jewish agencies
immediately condemned the “charade” stressing that “US law expressly
prohibits funding to a Palestinian government in which Hamas
participates”. They urged Congress to conduct a review of assistance to
the PA and ensure implementation of the law denying support to the PA if
it cooperated or bonded with Hamas.
There were senior lawmakers –
Democrats as well as Republicans - who also condemned the move and
insisted that the Palestinian anti-terror act passed in 2006
specifically precludes the US government from funding any government in
which Hamas is involved or exercises influence.
Although there is no certainty
that Congress will, in the short term, force the White House to back
down, public opinion unquestionably opposes the Obama policy. Despite
the hostility generated by the anti-Israeli liberal media, opinion polls
all indicate record levels of support for Israel amongst the American
people. The most recent, conducted last month by Paragon Insights on
behalf of the Israel Project, showed that a 2-1 majority blame the
Palestinians for the breakdown in negotiations and agrees that Israel
cannot be expected to deal with a PA which merges with genocidal Hamas
terrorists.
Over recent months, Congress
has also displayed a lack of confidence in the Obama administration’s
lack of accountability and transparency in foreign relations. This has
created major tensions, particularly amongst Democrats who do not wish
to be obliged to choose between abandoning their President or supporting
Israel.
That is the reason why Democrat
Senator Robert Menendez, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
and a powerful supporter of Israel, temporarily withdrew the US Israel
Strategic Partnership Act from the agenda. He did so out of concern that
an amendment, introduced by Republican Bob Corker reflecting
congressional distrust of the president’s handling of nuclear talks with
Iran and demanding greater accountability, could create major splits in
the ranks of the Democrats. The bill, which designated Israel as a
“strategic partner” and had already been passed in the House of
Representatives by 410 to 1 majority, was designed to expand US weapons
stockpiles in Israel and extend areas of joint US Israel collaboration
in areas such as energy, water and homeland security.
Ultimately a compromise will be
found, but this behavior reflects the turmoil - even amongst President
Obama’s Democratic supporters - concerning the administration’s
appeasement of the Iranians and pressure against Israel.
In the meantime, the House of
Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act which
included major boosts for Israel’s missile-defense programs as well as
sections highlighting concern about negotiations with the Iranians and
was carried on a bipartisan majority of 325 to 98.
It is indicative of the
direction in which the wind is blowing when potential presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton, in her new memoir, signals her disapproval of
President Obama’s policies when referring to the “tactical error” in
trying to “enforce a hardline on settlements”. She also criticized
Obama’ Iranian policy, telling a gathering of the American Jewish
Committee: “I personally am skeptical that the Iranians will follow
through and deliver… No deal is better than a bad deal”.
After the November midterm
elections, the president will increasingly become a lame-duck and with
the onset of primaries and campaigning for the next presidential
election, there is every probability that the Senate and Congress will
act against Obama if he makes further excessive demands on Israel or
totally capitulated to the Iranians. However, it should be noted that,
despite the Obama administration’s harsh political behavior towards
Israel, it has in fact strengthened the crucial US-Israel defense
relationship.
Israel must weather the
remainder of Obama’s presidential term, diplomatically balancing
resistance to the negative pressures without severing its crucial
relationship with the US. It should simultaneously seek to further
strengthen the public support it currently enjoys amongst the American
people and throughout Congress.
The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
No comments:
Post a Comment