According to The Sunday Times, Barack Obama has given his support to the so-called peace initiative launched by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah back in 2002.
When Barack Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last June that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided" you knew it was too good to be true.
Less than twenty-four hours had elapsed before Obama backtracked in the face of Palestinian pressure. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas lambasted Obama. "We reject these words. Jerusalem is one of the files under negotiation. The entire world knows perfectly well that we will never accept a state without Jerusalem," said Abbas. Note how Abbas didn't say East Jerusalem or part of Jerusalem but simply Jerusalem. But Obama dutifully obliged Abbas and the following day said, "Obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations." (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obama-camp-deni.html)
According to an article published in The Sunday Times on November 16, 2008, when Obama subsequently met with Abbas last July he gave his support to the so-called peace initiative launched by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah back in 2002. Under the auspices of the initiative, in exchange for Israel giving up land gained during the 1967 Six Day War (including East Jerusalem) the Arab world would recognize Israel. Or at the very least they would consider recognizing Israel. Of course, Israel would have to accept Palestinian refugees who are defined differently than any other refugee in the world and in fact have their own separate refugee agency within the UN. Whatever is left of Israel would become a de facto Palestinian state. Notwithstanding this state of affairs, Obama is said to have told Abbas, "The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco."
(http://www.timesonline.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece)
Well, so much for an undivided Israel much less an undivided Jerusalem. This goes beyond supporting a two-state solution. It's a two-faced solution. Call it a variation of talking one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco. Only Obama talks about Israel one way in Washington and another way in the West Bank.
Clearly, Obama takes the Saudis at their word. He believes the Saudis and the remainder of the Arab world will simultaneously establish diplomatic relations with Israel, cease printing anti-Semitic textbooks and support a stop to suicide attacks in Israel. But there's no reason to believe the Arab world will keep its word. Why would it when Obama is placing all the pressure on Israel to accept an imposed agreement? Remember it is Obama who thinks Israel is "crazy" for not surrendering Jerusalem. But apparently Obama doesn't think the Arab world isn't crazy for withholding recognition of Israel for all these years (save for Egypt and Jordan). While Israelis want nothing more than peace many have little reason to believe that countries hostile to it will keep their end of the bargain.
When Israel unilaterally withdrew its forces from Lebanon in 2000 did the violence cease? In fact, Hezbollah escalated its rocket attacks into Israel and would eventually kidnap two IDF soldiers in Israeli territory which in part precipitated a month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah. The soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, were killed by their captors. Their bodies were only returned to Israel when Israel agreed to release child killer Samir Kuntar. Where was the support from the Arab world for Israel?
When Israel unilaterally withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did the violence cease? In fact, Hamas escalated its rocket attacks into Israel and would eventually kidnap IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in Israeli territory which in part precipitated a conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza that lasted for more than four months. Corporal Shalit has been held for nearly two-and-a-half years despite Abbas' pledge to secure his release. Where was the support from the Arab world for Israel?
Despite Israel's best efforts to create a more peaceful Middle East its neighbors have escalated the violence. Yet Obama demands Israel write what amounts to a suicide note.
To be fair though, there are many in the Israeli political establishment who support the so-called Saudi Peace Initiative including new Kadima Party leader Tzipi Livni and former Israeli Prime Minister and current Israeli President Shimon Peres. Another former Israeli Prime Minister and current Likud Party leader, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, sees the so-called Saudi Peace Initiative for what it is and rightly opposes it.
Israelis have a very clear choice when they go to the polls in February 2009. If Israelis chose Livni and thus the so-called Saudi Peace Initiative then one can't really fault Obama's position. Obama could then argue the Israeli people agree with his position and voted to pursue a peace agreement. If that is the path Israelis choose then so be it. It's theirs to choose. However, if Israelis instead choose Netanyahu and the so-called Saudi Peace Initiative is jettisoned, look for Obama to blame all problems in the Middle East on Israel. Obama could refuse to meet with Netanyahu while having audiences with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syria's Bashar Assad. American-Israeli relations will be at their lowest ebb in six decades. If Obama chooses to take that road because Israelis voted for their own security first then Netanyahu will meet him head on. At least then we would know Obama's true face when it comes to Israel.
Dear Mr Goldstein,
This may come as a surprise to many, but the job of the President of the United States of America is to promote and protect the interests of the United States and its people – or more properly, to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”.
It is not the President’s job to “preserve, protect, and defend” whichever faction may be elected in Israel. As you rightly point out, many in Israel endorse, to an extent, the Saudi initiative as a basis, as I understand it, for future negotiations, not as a rigid structure for a solution.
On the other hand, as you again rightly point out, Likud (or Netanyahu) believe that Israel’s security is best preserved through a ‘confrontational’ approach. That approach, especially as you have portrayed it, means that the extent of distrust rules out any political, negotiated settlement – your references to “many [Israeli’s] have little reason to believe that countries hostile to it will keep their end of the bargain,” and “Israelis voted for their own security first”.
No President of the United States can endorse both these postures simultaneously without simply subverting the interests of the United States and its people to the whim of the Israeli electorate. That would be a dereliction of the Office of the President.
In my view, what Obama has already committed to in respect of Israel borders on a dereliction of the Office he has just been elected to hold. He has emphatically stated that the United States will defend Israel, and he has done so without reservation.
I cannot find anything in the Constitution of the United States that requires young American men and women to commit to the unquestioning defense of Israel, or indeed any other country, except by treaty. Yet, even treaties can be vitiated if the other party to the treaty provokes conflict, or acts unreasonably, which imperils the other party to the treaty.
It seems to me that the onus here lies on the Israeli electorate, not the newly democratically elected President of the United States of America. The Israelis already have an absolute commitment from Obama to come to their aid. It is up to the Israelis to demonstrate that they deserve that commitment, and the cost in American lives it would entail if the circumstances arise.
To suggest that any American President should simply commit to the unquestioning defense and support of Israel is utterly ridiculous. Israelis are free to elect whomever they please. But they are not free to demand, or even expect, that others sacrifice their lives to clean up the mess if they screw up.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Joseph,
Is it a dereliction of duty for the president to form alliances with Israel’s Arab neighbors? How about NATO? The UK? Was it a dereliction of duty to militarily and diplomatically isolate Russia during the Cold War? How about the North Vietnam and North Korea communist regimes? Germany during WWII? Does this standard apply universally, or is Israel somehow exceptional? By contrast, was it virtuous to abandon our one-sided partnerships with Taiwan and the democratic rebellion in Cuba?