Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ultra-nationalistic sidekicks must be praying for Barack Obama’s departure next January. It’s not that the US president has exactly been tightening the screws on the intransigent Israeli leader to return to the table, although unfettered by a reliance on the Jewish and Christian Zionist vote he would probably have taken a much more forceful line.
Obama was said to hold pro-Palestinian sympathies prior to moving to the White House and he did promise to deliver a Palestinian state. However, he swiftly came to terms with reality. One hand can’t clap and Netanyahu’s hand hasn’t been extended.
Instead, via his administration colleagues, Obama has sought to maintain a subtle balance. While he has had to bow his head to the powerful pro-Israel lobby in recent months in an effort to hang on to his job, on December 2, his Defence Secretary Leon Panetta urged Israel to mend fences with Turkey, Egypt and Jordan and “get back to the damn table”.
On December 3, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she was concerned about the erosion of Israel’s democracy, in particular, proposed new legislation barring left-wing non-governmental organisations from foreign funding and a new libel law designed to gag the media, which opposition Kadima and Labor Party leaders have dubbed “fascist” and “evidence of a dark dictatorship”.
Clinton further expressed her concerns about women’s civil liberties in Israel in relation to their segregation on buses travelling through ultra-orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods, citing the American civil liberties icon Rosa Parks.
Such bold criticisms of Israel from senior government officials merely compounded Israeli anger at the sentiments of the US. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman, who told attendees of a conference organised by the European Jewish Union that “a distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians”. He said Muslim anti-Jewish feelings would be “significantly diminished” if Israel and the Palestinians succeeded in making peace.
In spite of the fact that the seemingly concerted messages from Panetta, Clinton and Gutman all contained a kernel of indisputable truth, it goes without saying that in some Israeli quarters all three have been branded anti-Semites, the traditional go-to method used by Zionists to silence Israel’s critics. Similarly unsurprising is that the rift between the Obama administration and Tel Aviv has been seized upon by the Republican party’s presidential candidate front-runners, currently trying to out-do their rivals in their slavish commitment to the Jewish state.
Last week, Republican candidates made their views known at a Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Candidates Forum held in Washington where they bashed Obama in no uncertain terms.
Mitt Romney blamed Obama for neglecting to find “the time or interest” to visit “Israel, our ally, our friend”. He described the US president as being “timid and weak in the face of the existential threat that Israel faces from Iran” which he claims has “emboldened Palestinian hardliners” poised to form a unity government “with terrorist Hamas”. Romney promised that his first foreign trip as president would be to Israel where he would affirm Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
Newt Gingrich blasted the US ambassador’s speech and called for him to be fired. He described Panetta’s comments as “outrageous” and condemned Clinton for talking about gender discrimination in Israel when she meets with Saudis.
A Gingrich administration would issue an execute order “about two hours after the inaugural address” to transfer the US embassy from Tel Aviv to occupied Jerusalem that same day.
Rick Perry pointed his finger at the Obama administration for what he described as “a torrent of hostility towards Israel”.
Michele Bachmann said Obama’s appeasement policies have “emboldened Palestinians to seek statehood in the UN” which she characterised as “the most overrated organisation in the world”. If she were elected, she promises to recognise Israel’s future expansion of colonies — and, like Gingrich, aims to transfer the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem.
The tragedy is that even if Israelis elect a more liberal party to lead them in November 2013, unless Obama remains in charge any new Israeli prime minister genuinely pursuing a two-state solution will be devoid of a sympathetic White House. Moreover, the extreme biased stances held by just about all Republican presidential candidates — with the notable exception of Ron Paul — will only bring the Palestinians to a condition of ‘no-hope’ that could ignite a third Intifada and greatly antagonise the Arab world’s newly influential Islamist parties, further deepening Israel’s regional isolation.
Historically, meaningful steps towards peace between Israelis and Palestinians/Arabs have been brokered by Democratic American presidents, such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who maintained a semblance of impartiality. By wrapping themselves in Israel’s flag, Republican wannabes will be unable to cloak themselves as honest brokers.
Obama may have let the Palestinians down but, frankly, from this region’s perspective he is the best of a bad bunch. And who knows what he could achieve were a reasonable Israeli politician like Kadima leader Tzipi Livni at Israel’s helm. I only hope we get the chance to find out.
Front Page Features