By the 1960s America was Israel’s steadfast friend. In the tense months leading up to the Six Day War, President Lyndon B. Johnson dispatched the US Sixth Fleet to the Eastern Mediterranean in case Israel came under attack – presumably from either Syria or Russia.
It’s sometimes ironic that the Presidents who are best for Israel aren’t necessarily the best for America.
Richard Nixon is a case in point. Against the advice of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Nixon defied both his own cabinet and America’s European allies (except Holland) to put in motion a massive arms airlift to Israel. This helped turn the tide of the war from an initial fiasco into Israel’s most decisive military victory ever. More impressive than even the Six Day War of 1967.
Nevertheless, few political historians would try to make the case that America’s 37th president was really good for America.
I came to Israel in the mid-1970s. Since that time it has been very clear who our friends are. When it comes for standing up for Israel, we can count on the United States. And that’s about it.
This has become the status quo. As in any friendship – strategic or otherwise – there are ups and downs. But a deep friendship has serious roots. And that’s what should characterize the relationship between the United States and Israel.
The last two presidents – Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – were also staunch supporters of Israel. It may be said that the former was better for America than the latter. Kind of fits the Nixon era paradigm described above.
And then there were the most recent elections in America.
If Jews had any misgivings about the prospect of the first African American president when Obama was nominated in June, they got over them. Three-quarters of Jewish voters cast their ballots for Obama last November. The groundswell of Jewish support was so strong that in October a blog called “Jews for Obama” offered an apology of sorts:
We regret to inform you that we are now sold out of Obama-kah yarmulkes and due to the holidays of Sukkot and Simchat Torah, our manufacturer cannot provide a new shipment in time for us to re-distribute the yarmulkes to you before the election on Nov. 4.
With such grassroots Jewish support for Obama (both financially and in polling booths), there was no reason to think he would apply his “Change” mantra to Israel. Surely he meant getting the economy back on track.
I admit it now. We were wrong. [I should point out that while I follow American politics I do not vote in US elections. I could but I don’t. My choice. I have lived in Israel longer than I lived in the US and just don’t think it’s the right thing for me to do.]
So far American Jews seem to be standing by their man. But that’s not terribly surprising considering the alternative. After all, how could Jewish liberals on either coast vote for McCain and Palin? But that’s a subject for another time.
The watershed, of course, came in June. First the president of the strongest democracy in the world pandered to the King of Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive and least progressive countries in the world. Then he apologized to the rest of the Islamic world for America’s “crusade” against them.
In the process he spoke of all the amazing foundations of American society: equal rights, democracy, education to name but a few. He said this in Cairo where thousands of dissidents are in jail. He was talking about women’s rights to people who have none. And so on.
And he also talked about the threat Iran poses to the world as we know it. But there was no announcement of a game plan.
In his way, Obama probably thought he was being evenhanded. But of course anyone who follows the Middle East knows there is no such thing. He said he wanted to reach out to the Palestinians who have been suffering in refugee camps for 60 years. The Arab world received that statement with resounding applause. It’s what they wanted to hear. The US President said that the establishment of the Jewish entity in the Middle East was responsible for the Palestinian refugee conundrum.
But he tried to be fair. After all, Israel was created because of the Holocaust when 6 million Jews were killed. This was also an important statement for both sides. Israelis heard the President of the United States wipe out thousands of years of Jewish history and civilization. Presumably with his eye wide open he walked right along with our adversaries’ argument that delegitimizes Jewish historical claims to Eretz Yisrael.
I could continue but there is absolutely no problem in finding a writer and/or publication to support your views.
But of course there’s more.
First is the stupid insistence on a total freeze to Jewish communities in the West Bank. I don’t use the word “stupid” lightly. Where else in the world would the President of the United States even think of telling people they shouldn’t have babies.
But that’s exactly what his Secretary of State (who used to be a good friend of Israel) said: “. . .a stop to settlements. Not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.”
Once again he played right into the Arabs’ hands by making settlements on the West Bank “the” impediment to peace. Isn’t that interesting. It’s not successive (unbelievably corrupt) Palestinian representatives who are forever backsliding that are impediments to peace. Remember the Camp David Accords that led to both Nobel Prizes and the first Intifada? And the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s. And the Madrid Conference. And back to Oslo. And back to Camp David.
Israel kept agreeing to more than we thought we should – because we knew we had a staunch supporter that would never sell us out. And so we would heave a weary sigh when we endured homicide bombers. And we pulled out of the Gaza Strip again only to have it become our worst nightmare – a staging ground for rockets that could reach one out of every eight Israelis. So we went back into Gaza last December. There were no winners in that campaign. Unless you call worldwide sympathy for the latest humanitarian crisis a victory.
Unfortunately my story doesn’t end here. A week ago the US Vice President Joe Biden said on ABC that ‘Israel is free to do whatever it deems necessary to remove the Iranian nuclear threat.’ Of course the White House immediately demurred, saying that the US had “absolutely not” given approval for an Israeli strike on Iran.
Where is this leading? Three weeks ago (June 19) an Israeli public opinion poll indicated that only 6 percent of the respondents said that the new administration in Washington is pro-Israel and 50 percent said they feel it is pro-Palestinian.
Ironically this is in sharp contrast to Israeli views on the last Bush administration when 88 percent felt the administration was pro-Israel and a mere 2 percent felt the administration was pro-Palestinian. This reinforces the concept that the administrations that are perceived as best for Israel aren’t necessarily best for America.
And to think, President Obama accomplished this sweeping change in just over eight months. I shudder to think what he can accomplish in eight years.
So what’s the bottom line? Why are Israelis so afraid of President Obama? It’s the three strike rule:
Strike One: In Cairo he delegitimized Jewish claims to Eretz Yisrael by using spurious arguments based on questionable moral equivalency.
Strike Two: He had his Secretary of State push the envelope in insisting that settlements in the West Bank are THE stumbling block to peace.
Strike Three: His Vice President shouldn’t have said that Israel has a green light to attack Iran.
As a friend of mine said after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting with President Obama in Washington, “When you have a gun at your head it’s hard to talk about anything else.” Even then Obama was harping on West Bank settlements and all Netanyahu could talk about was nuclear Iran.
Apparently no one told the President that Iranian nukes are closer to Jerusalem than Chicago is to Washington.
Rather than have a strikeout, I would say Obama flied out on the first pitch is a weak pup-up.
ReplyDelete