There have been a range of speculative articles concerning the current rift between the Obama administration and Israel, triggered by the recent announcement of new building permits in Jerusalem during the Biden visit. There is little agreement on whether or not the Obama administration has a strategy underpinning its rebukes of Israel or whether their reaction primarily represents personal pique.
Walter Russell Mead has been discussing American support of Israel and has pointed out that the Israel lobby can only be effective in direct proportion to how supportive American gentiles are of Israel. In his post today, he discusses the current crisis in these terms:
Obama and the Jacksonian Zionists
The Obama administration must now make some tough choices. Israel’s open show of disrespect during Biden’s visit made the US administration look weak. That is something Jacksonians do not want to see in an American president. They admire tough leaders and despise weak ones. On the other hand, Jacksonians don’t want a long and bitter fight with a country they support as America’s most important ally in the most dangerous region in the world. They are also likely to draw unfavorable comparisons between what they will see as President Obama’s soft policy toward Iran and his tough stand against Israel.
President Obama needs to do two things now in this dispute. He must stand tall, and he must settle quick. He cannot afford a humiliating climb down in the face of Israeli pressure, but it is unlikely that either Congress or Jacksonian America will back him in a long and divisive struggle. Israel on the other hand cannot welcome a bitter controversy that will polarize American public opinion and damage Israel’s image, perhaps irreparably, among the liberal constituencies who were once its strongest source of support.
But whatever happens in the Washington policy wars, one thing should be clear. This is not a battle between ‘the Jews’ and the rest of the United States over our policy in the Middle East. It is a battle between opposing conceptions of America’s interests in the Middle East, and gentiles and Jews can be found on both sides.
Isi Leibler, writing in the Jerusalem Post, believes that this crisis of opportunity has been used by the Obama administration as a pretext for eventually forcing a settlement upon Israel:
NETANYAHU HAS extended more concessions than any other Israeli leader. His government immediately agreed to negotiations with the Palestinians. In contrast, Abbas told The Washington Post that being confident that the US would ensure that the Palestinians obtained whatever they sought, he saw no benefit in negotiating with the Israelis. This scenario is now being realized.
Netanyahu also overcame Likud resistance to a two-state solution and acceded to a temporary settlement freeze which no previous Israeli government was willing to consider. He authorized the release of prisoners and reduced checkpoints, even compromising the security of Israeli civilians.
Yet, far from acting as an honest broker, the US effectively endorsed most of the Palestinian positions and is poised to pressure Israel into making further unilateral concessions.
In a recent chilling document, reiterated by Biden in the course of his condemnation of construction in Jerusalem, the US assured the PA that the principal objective of the “indirect” negotiations was not peace, but the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and that parties who adopted negative positions would be dealt with “in order to overcome that obstacle.”
Our relations with the US will now be further tested.
Obama is surely aware that recent statements by his administration will only embolden the Palestinians and Jihadists to be more extreme in their demands, making it inevitable that the talks will almost certainly fail. Some may infer that this is precisely his intention. We will then be blamed for the breakdown and the US, with the backing of the Quartet and others, will then seek to impose a solution upon us.
The idea of forcing a solution upon the Israelis has been supported by members of the Obama administration (though they downplayed their comments and hid their inclinations during the campaign.) Forcing those who are dependent upon you to do your bidding fits the Chicago M.O. and considering Obama's desire for paradigm shattering change, there is reason to suspect that this would be a desired outcome from Obama's point of view. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the core issue in the Middle East, a solution that is to the liking of the Palestinians and their Arab/Muslim supporters would remake the Middle East. Unfortunately for all concerned, the only solution acceptable to the Palestinians is the destruction of Israel; such an outcome remains highly unlikely.
This brings us to the key point; the behavior of the Obama administration is increasing the risks of war in the Middle East:
World Citizen: Fears that Iran Wants to Trigger Mideast War
As the United States steps up its campaign to impose economic sanctions on Iran, fears are growing in Washington and in the Middle East that Iran will try to trigger a new war in the region in order to shift attention from its nuclear activities, throw the U.S. and its allies off balance, and put Israel on the defensive.
Few people, if any, envision Iran launching a direct attack. Rather, the concern is that Tehran will manage to stir up trouble in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, or even Syria, in order to spark a new confrontation between Israel and one of its Iran-allied neighbors. Even if the most likely scenarios do not include initial involvement by Iranian forces, at least not directly, the possibility that Tehran could join the fray cannot be discounted. And given the unpredictability of armed conflict and the level of tension between the U.S. and Iran, the possibility of eventual American involvement, while unlikely, is not out of the question.
The first high-ranking official to give voice to the worries that have now started spreading in the region was White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post in late January, Jones predicted a series of events that, one might argue, are coming to pass.
"As pressure on the regime in Tehran builds over its nuclear program," Jones made the case, "there is a heightened risk of further attacks against Israel or efforts to promote renewed violence in the West Bank." Jones said that Iran, under pressure from domestic opponents and international critics, would likely "lash out" against Israel through Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Frida Ghitis concludes:
Israel does not want a war now. Indeed, it is so concerned about a miscue leading to war that it decided to alter the long-planned Firestones 12 military exercise, canceling the part that included maneuvers along the Syrian border lest Damascus confuse the exercise with the kind of Israeli attack that Iran claims is imminent.
Experience of the Middle East has proven time and again that war can break out almost by accident, even when no one wants one to start. If a key player does want a war, it may prove impossible to prevent.
General Jones appreciates that the time is auspicious, from the point of view of the Iranians, to stir the pot in the Middle East. Yet, by weakening our ties with Israel and creating the perception throughout the Arab and Muslim world that we are less committed to Israel, we make war more likely.
The Palestinians have decided to leverage the situation in their typical manner; Hamas has called for a "day of rage" because of the Jewish "outrage" of announcing Jewish Heritage sites and rededicating the restored Hurva Synagogue.
These are depressing days, no doubt about it. The Hurva Synagogue, which is in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City, has been rebuilt and has been rededicated, and in response, Hamas has called for a "day of rage." Why? I don't know why. The Hurva Synagogue does not sit atop the Temple Mount; it's not near the Temple Mount. Rumors that the rebuilding has affected the Temple Mount are being spread by people who want to create violence and death in the holy city.
For those, like Jeffrey Goldberg, who do not understand why Hamas would object to the Synagogue, one simple explanation is that since the synagogue is on a hill, it is taller than the Al Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount, and according to Sharia Law, no non-Muslim religious structure in a Muslim community can be taller than a Mosque.* Beyond that, Jeffrey has it correct that the objection by Hamas is all about denying the Jewish connection to Jerusalem.
*[Antigonos corrects me in his comment below.]
There has been further speculation that the current public displeasure with Israel is intended to preclude them from unilaterally attacking Iran's nuclear program. An unavoidable consequence is to increase the perception in Iran that the United States is feckless and less able to support Israel; this can only embolden HISH (Hezbollah/Iran/Syria/Hamas) irredentism.
Which bring me to a Psychoanalytic point. When patients behave in ways which are likely to bring about outcomes that they consciously do not desire, the suspicion must be entertained that they unconsciously desire the untoward outcome. The behavior of the Obama administration makes war in the Middle East more likely rather than less likely; I doubt such a war would be an intended consequence but it is certainly a predictable consequence.
Recent Comments