Three Strikes Against Obama

Since the State of Israel declared its independence in May 1948 the United States has been one of its staunchest supporters.

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.

Confederacy of Dunces?

The results of several high profile political corruption cases have received major coverage in Israel in the last 10 days. Let it be said from the outset that the Israeli cases pale in comparison to Ponzi architect Bernard Madoff. Nevertheless they are significant. While both Madoff and the Israeli cases involved personal greed, Madoff was convicted for stealing private funds while at the end of June two former Israeli cabinet ministers were given prison sentences for stealing from the public.

Former Finance Minister Avraham Hirschson was sentenced to five years and five months in prison for larceny, executive theft, fraud, breach of trust, illicitly obtaining funds, money laundering and falsifying corporate documents. The State Prosecutor’s Office proved his theft of an estimated NIS 2 million (over $500,000) from the Histadrut Labor Federation. No doubt there is more they couldn’t prove. The details of his abuse of power were particularly galling and disgusting. This is a man who thought all the money his stole was rightfully coming to him. The Supreme Court disagreed. In addition to jail time he has to pay a fine of NIS 450,000 (about $115,000).

Meanwhile former cabinet minister Shlomo Benizri who appealed his 18 month sentence for bribery, fraud and breach of trust, had his sentence increased to four years. This is clearly a man who doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. A man who thought he would be cleared of any wrongdoing.

There are a number of points that make these Israeli cases thought provoking. Hischson’s son made a heartfelt appeal to the court to spare his father because ‘my heart is breaking into a million pieces seeing him here.’

Benizri said this is going to be difficult on his family. ‘I didn’t put any of the money in my own pocket,’ he said when he heard his new sentence.

Clearly the Supreme Court judges didn’t buy these pleas. [It should be noted there are no jury trials in Israel. Cases are decided by a panel of judges.]

Am I supposed to feel bad because Benizri was convicted even if he didn’t benefit personally? He claims to have given the money to various Torah institutions supported by his Shas party.

His party’s newspaper returned to their usual paranoia: Israeli society can’t handle successful Moroccans. Benizri’s brother blamed the verdict on high ranking homosexuals in Israeli law enforcement.

Histrionics aside the fact is both men are guilty. And the Israeli public really deserves better. A lot better.

There is a long line of cabinet ministers and Knesset members who have been convicted of various offenses – more or less serious. Haim Ramon just resigned from the Knesset. He was convicted several years ago of kissing a female employee. He did community service. If you’re interested you can Google names including Aharon Abuhatzera, Shmuel Flatto-Sharon, Naomi Blumenthal, Rafael Pinhasi, Yitzhak Mordechai, Aryeh Deri, Yair Levi and Gonen Segev.

Most of the people on this list were involved in illegal financial transactions. Ramon and Mordechai were convicted of what boils down to sexual harassment. Gonen Segev tried to smuggle 32,000 hits of Ecstasy into the country using a forged diplomatic passport.

These are all relatively recent cases. Corruption is not new on the Israeli scene.

What’s disappointing is that Pinhasi, Deri, Levi and Benizri are all from the same party: Shas. Their constituency is predominately Moroccan and religious. They think they’re being singled out because they come from “the wrong side of the tracks.” I see it differently: I wonder what they are thinking about during the Vidui on Yom Kippur when we confess our sins.

The fact is both Hischson and Benizri stole from the public. In my book that makes them thieves. No less significant is that fact that they betrayed the trust put in them when they were elected to public office.

Of course we’re not finished. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is under investigation for corruption and former President Moshe Katsav is going to have to prove he isn’t a serial rapist. If he’s lucky he’ll only be convicted of sexual harassment.

Unfortunately the list doesn’t end there. I doubt that the current Foreign Minister Avigdor Leiberman will complete his term without being indicted on one of several corruption charges. We’re facing the real possibility that our foreign minister may actually be almost as corrupt as the Palestinian officials he’ll be expected to negotiate with.

And in case this isn’t bizarre enough, Aryeh Deri who went to jail and was barred from returning to politics for seven years, is now allowed to stage a comeback. Hard to believe that people would vote for the man who brought dishonor on their party. But politics really does make strange bedfellows. Perhaps that’s what Benizri’s brother really means: “We can make our own rules.” Stay turned on this one.

On the one hand we seem to have a Confederacy of Dunces here. But I don’t believe that’s the case. No doubt we have crooked politicians. But that doesn’t make Israel different from other democracies. What gives it an unusual cast is the fact that so many of the convicted Knesset members are ultra orthodox. No doubt that’s one of the results of the fact that we live in a Jewish country that does not pretend to have separation of synagogue and state. If I wanted to be amused by this I would say that we have created a system where even religious politicians can be crooks.

But I want to be very clear about this. I’m not amused. And the Israeli public is not amused. We’re very tired of people who think that might makes right. (Where have I heard that before?) Because they received a percentage of the public trust in the form of votes, they think they can help themselves to the public’s finances.

As Judge Bracha Ofir-Tom wrote in her opinion in Hirschson’s case: "It's inconceivable that he [Hirschson] did not understand that taking the money is not only against the law, but also damages the heart of good government. The message this court wants to send is loud and clear. His punishment will not be different from that of a common criminal."

And just in case somehow Avraham Hirschson and Shlomo Benizri really didn’t understand, they will have plenty of time to grasp the issues involved.

Hamas and Confidence Building

This is my first entry on this blog. Check back. I've got more to say. Comments welcome, of course.

Three years ago today Gilad Shalit was kidnapped from his tank in Gaza and his been held incommunicado ever since. Why was he kidnapped? Because he is an Israeli soldier. Why does this bother me? He was another nearsighted kid barely out of his teens. It could have been my son. (Although my son didn't serve in the Tank Corps.) It also bothers me because in my own personal inner sanctum I breathe a sigh of relief. Because my son is not Gilad Shalit and because I am not Noam Shalit.

Who kidnapped him? Hamas. Where is he being held? Apparently in Gaza.

I'll try not to belabor the obvious. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply here. Shalit has received no visits. Not even the Red Cross has been allowed access.

And yet the President of the United States wants Israel to make peace with Hamas. Apparently so do a lot of well-meaning people around the world. Not the least of them is Helena Cobban who published an article entitled, "My talk with Hamas about peace with Israel" in The Christian Science Monitor on June 24. Here's the entire article : http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0624/p09s01-coop.html

I'll select a few parts that illustrate what's going on here. Don't get me wrong. I'm more certain of how Israel will deal with Hamas than how people like Helena Cobban will deal with Israel.

Hamas has been on the State Department's "terrorism list" since its founding in 1987. It has steadfastly refused to recognize Israel. But it has also won – and kept – considerable popular support among Palestinians.

In 2006 it won parliamentary elections held in the West Bank and Gaza. More recently it survived the military onslaught Israel launched against Gaza last December – and in the wake of that war, Hamas's popularity among Palestinians increased.

Meanwhile, Washington's ongoing campaign to strengthen the rival Fatah party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has backfired badly. Rather than strengthening Fatah, the aid that Washington and its allies have sent to Mr. Abbas has further fueled the nepotism and corruption within Fatah and hastened its internal decline.

One major challenge for today's peacemakers has been Hamas's refusal to meet the three preconditions that Washington and its allies in the international "Quartet" set in 2006, before they would even start talking to it.

Hamas, they said, must renounce violence, recognize Israel, and sign on to all the agreements previously reached by the Palestinian Authority (PA.) (Another challenge has been Washington's refusal, until now, to consider any reframing of those demands.)

Hamas, part of the solution?

I interviewed Hamas head Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus, Syria, on June 4. He restated his opposition to the preconditions, on principle. He noted that Washington did not apply any such preconditions to hard-line members of Israel's government. Also, he pointed out that in Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo, he had called for talks with Iran's government without any preconditions at all.

[I skipped a paragraph.]

Meshaal is a sober, intelligent man who talks in a way that seems much more "political," and politically savvy, than religious. He stressed that Hamas wanted to be "part of the solution, not part of the problem."
He expressed a strong desire for Hamas to heal its present deep rift with Fatah. He also reaffirmed Hamas's support for a 2006 proposal whereby Abbas or other non-Hamas negotiators would conduct the actual peace negotiations with Israel. Any resulting peace agreement would then be submitted to a Palestinian-wide referendum, and Hamas would abide by its results, he said.

If Hamas and Fatah can rebuild enough trust to authorize a unified Palestinian team to start negotiating, this proposal could allow peace talks to proceed without finding a complete prior answer to the West's "dealing with Hamas" problem.

Meshaal also restated Hamas's support for establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in the areas that Israel occupied in 1967 – providing that all the occupied land, including East Jerusalem, as well as the right of Palestinian refugees to return to areas they fled in 1948, would also be implemented.

Ms Cobban, I have a few things to say to you. By extension I would also like to say this to the folks on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue (the White House and the Executive Office Building). And to a lot of other well meaning people.

[Please note that my comments appear in italics]:

1. ". . .the military onslaught Israel launched against Gaza last December." According to Ms Cobban apparently there was no reason for Israel to attack Gaza. In case you're wondering, one out of eight Israeli citizens were within range of Hamas missiles last December.
2. There are reasons that Hamas is on the State Department's list of terror organizations: Because it is a terrorist organization.
3. How polite of you to recall that Hamas won "parliamentary elections" in 2006. You subsequently write that they ". . . participated peacefully and successfully in the nationwide vote." Remind me again, how many people did they kill during and in the aftermath of those election? Hint: a lot.
4. Khaled Meshaal is described as "sober," "intelligent" and "politically savvy more than religious."
5. Meshaal wants to be "part of the solution, not part of the problem." Who is stopping him? I'll go out on a limb on this one. 'If only Israel would _____ [fill in the blank] then this process would get going.' Let me be very clear about this point: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. What I believe is that Hamas, and Fatah before them really agree on one thing. Routing Israel out of the Middle East.
6. "He expressed a strong desire for Hamas to heal its present deep rift with Fatah."
7. "If Hamas and Fatah can rebuild enough trust to authorize a unified Palestinian team to start negotiating." One of the myriad difficulties with our present, past and future is that Palestinian organizations are like Medusa. We thought we were negotiating with Fatah until we almost reached an agreement at Camp David. Now we are going to be expected to negotiate IN GOOD FAITH with Hamas. That is, once Hamas has eliminated enough of the Fatah supporters so that they can turn their efforts to the real enemy.
8. "Meshaal also restated Hamas's support for establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in the areas that Israel occupied in 1967 – providing that all the occupied land, including East Jerusalem, as well as the right of Palestinian refugees to return to areas they fled in 1948, would also be implemented." First we give up the store and then we start negotiations. I guess having thousands of years of Jewish history in Israel isn't sufficient.
9. "No Israeli government would accept this plan as it stands. But it represents a notable shift toward pragmatism and away from the positions stated in Hamas's 1988 Charter." This is one point we may agree on even if our agreement comes from different points of view. Cobban describes Hamas as being 'pragmatic.' Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't necessarily view that as a good thing.

The article continues. If you're interested you can read it in its entirety. As with many other interviews of this type I can't help being cynical. Another armchair quarterback. Another well meaning reporter who paints terrorists as "sober" and "intelligent." The missing subtext is that it's Israel who forced these otherwise normal individuals to become terrorists. And as soon as Israel meets their demands the terrorism will stop.

No, it won't. My point should be clear. What Meshaal is saying with phrases like "settling a rift with Fatah" is 'getting rid of Fatah.' What he means by 'returning Palestinians to land they fled in 1948' is wiping the Jewish state off the map. Once and for all.

If he were going to be fair he would stretch out his hand and say that the Palestinians could go back to their villages in Israel -- and that Jews could go back to their homes (or be compensated for their homes and property) in Arab countries and all over Europe.

But of course we all know that's never going to happen. We now live in a very different world.

President Obama made it abundantly clear in his Cairo speech that moral equivalency is in vogue in the center of power these days. In this article, Cobban compares Hamas with Israel's Likud party.

Where are the copyeditors at the CSM? The Likud killed no one in the process of being elected. How can you make comparisons like that?! And unless someone challenges this type of reporting it seems doomed to get worse.

Before this becomes too long to read, I have a suggestion. If Khaled Meshaal is truly both sober and intelligent perhaps he could also demonstrate that he stands for more than killing people -- both Fatah supporters and Jews.

Release Gilad Shalit. Then we can talk.