Foreign Policy in Focus - A Think Tank Without Walls
Foreign Policy In Focus

FPIF Commentary

Obama and Israel

Ian Williams | January 9, 2009

Editor: John Feffer

Email this page to a friend

Comment on this article

Foreign Policy In Focus

On January 5 John Bolton, the former unconfirmed U.S. envoy to the United Nations, advocated in The Washington Post a "three-state solution" to the Palestinian problem. This "solution" involved returning Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan because the Palestinian state has manifestly failed.

A perennial cutter of Gordian knots, Bolton usually misses the complexity of the turns — and the identity of the knot-tiers. In this case, he missed the rather obvious point that the Palestinian Authority's ailments are connected to the Israeli refusal to allow a viable and contiguous state to exist and its constant undermining of whatever party the Palestinian people elect, first Fatah and now Hamas. In fact, Bolton doesn't go far enough. Following his line of "reasoning," Israel should be returned to Britain as a mandate and then quickly turned over to the United States.

The Obama administration isn't likely to pick up Bolton's advice to dissolve the Palestinian state. In the current policy vacuum, however, Obama should be ready for a serious rethink of U.S. policy. And that rethink should begin with Israel.

Israel and the United States

Israel is far from being simply a U.S. satellite and base. In many ways, the United States orbits Israel. For domestic political reasons, the U.S. government in effect uncritically guarantees almost any act of any Israeli government. There are, of course, some limits, though not many. For example, it's clear that Israel either couldn't or wouldn't mount an attack on Iran without U.S. approval, which was likely withheld more because of its potential effect on U.S. forces in the region than any principled objection to the idea.

This U.S.-Israeli relationship gives President-elect Obama, despite his distressing silence on the Gaza conflict, a unique window of opportunity. Domestically, he garnered the votes of almost 80% of American Jews, despite a furious campaign from Republican and Likudnik die-hard organizations questioning his attachment to the Zionist project and Israel's defense.

Even after his kowtowing to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) during the primaries, Obama won even more support from American Muslims than he did from Jews.

Obama shouldn't listen to conservative Jewish organizations, who outshout the silent majority of American Jews who abide by their traditional liberal and humanitarian instincts. The overwhelming majority of American Jews voted for Obama, and the emergence of voices like J Street offers an opportunity for a new president who owes the "Israel Lobby" nothing.

Obama and Israel

If Obama wants to be a real friend to Israel, he has to let the Israeli government know its actions are not consequence-free. There is both a principled and a pragmatic constituency that he can address in Israel itself. Until now, the Israeli electorate has worked on the principle that whatever happens, the United States will provide support. If the government needs replacements for expended cluster bombs, the United States will airlift them in. If the UN, the EU, and other international actors criticize Israel's military actions, Washington will send the aid check as always. This uncritical support of Israel must change.

Obama shouldn't let the immediate crisis in Gaza deflect from the root problem. Israeli leaders have a profound ambivalence toward the peace process, to which they officially subscribe even as they continue building settlements in the West Bank. The United States must push Israel toward greater engagement with a peace settlement. Nor can the United States or the EU continue to ostracize any Palestinian (or for that matter the Lebanese) leadership demonized by Israel as terrorists.

On the carrot side, Obama should promise full security guarantees to Israel within the internationally accepted borders, based on the June 1967 lines.

Since he is being bipartisan, the new president should take up where George Bush Sr. and James Baker left off almost two decades ago. Any Israeli spending on settlement building should be condemned in the UN, and matched by equivalent reductions in U.S. aid. He should also implement actual U.S. policy by reminding Israelis that American weaponry is intended for defensive purposes and that any used in attacks beyond the borders won't be replaced.

Finally, the president-elect should speak out now about the desirability of Israel abiding by UN Security Council Resolution 1860, which calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, Israeli troop withdrawal, and sustained delivery of humanitarian assistance. A word from Obama would give Israel the excuse it desperately needs to extricate itself from the hole it dug in Gaza, while redounding to the president-elect's credit globally.

Given the cast of mind of many leading Democrats, such a rethink of U.S.-Israel relations is sure to be controversial. But early and speedy action before Obama starts campaigning for reelection should produce results. And backing a durable peace would be the best way of supporting Israel in the end.

Ian Williams is a senior analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus. More of his work is available on www.deadlinepundit.blogspot.com.

 

Subscribe to
World Beat

FPIF's weekly ezine


Support FPIF


Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.

Recommended citation:
Ian Williams, "Obama and Israel," (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, January 9, 2009).

Web location:
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/5779

Production Information:
Author(s): Ian Williams
Editor(s): John Feffer
Production: Jen Doak

Latest Comments & Conversation Area
Editor's Note: FPIF.org editors read and approve each comment. Comments are checked for content only; spelling and grammar errors are not corrected and comments that include vulgar language or libelous content are rejected.
 
Name Huey Date: Jan 10, 2009
Ian Williams sounds like a 19year-old college girl writing this. There is absilutely no common sense or sense of what such actions would mean globally. The U.S. backs Israel. Enough said. In life, everyone needs friends who will back them up unconditionally and we have always been that to Israel. Obama coming in and changing that would not only make him look like an arrogant fool, but it would hurt his credibility with Israel, our allies, and a lot of the U.S. population. Treating Israel the same way the UN treats them is nit "the change we need" from Obama. Furthermore, Israel is not going to back out just because Obama says to. They would look weak, vulnerable, and if the U.S. revolves around Israel as much as the article says, then they would not allow that dynamic to chang just because Obama said so. The Israeli military has more than enough firepower to take out Hamas and they will do just that. They haven't claimed that these Paleestinians are terrorists - THEY ARE terrorists, and we should be wise enough to see that. It really is disheartening that these are the kind of ignorant articles put out today. I would love to see an article about how we need to just grow a backbone and rid Israel and the Middle East of Hamas and others like them once and for all. Why is that so hard to do?
Name Cyrous Moradi Date: Jan 11, 2009
Probably there is an important fact in the Bolton's words about Palestinians. After nearly 60 years of United States engagement in the Middle East still they are not familiar with the ABCs of main important local problems. US Policy makers every time are looking from Israelian windows to the regional issues including the Palestinians. The formation of Palestinian states have already been approved by the United Nations very first resolutions. On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority international vote, passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181).

The most dangerous aspect of American approach to Middle East issues is its almost universality among US politicians. No matter Democrats or republicans they always advocate the Israel stance. US support for Israel probably was justifiable during Cold war time but unfortunately continued after this turn point.

United Sates unilateral support of Israel weakens its stance as a neutral peace broker in the region. I heard that a few American diplomats could speak Arabic and familiar with the region's history.

United States during the last 60 years wanted to change the Middle East according the Israelian plans. I think it is the right time that Washington tries to recognize the current situation. Before any change American should know what exactly the current situation is, change comes later.

Name shirak Date: Jan 15, 2009
The more US give support to Isreal the more damge does to Isreal. This is not 60 years ago. The middle East has changed the past thirty years. The change will continue into natural direction. The next thirty years we will see a Palestinian country as Palestin in its mainland. In the next thirty years The Sausdi arabia, Jordan, Eygept, Moracco and Cyria will run by their own people rather by the western contries. If Obama is smart will change US policy in a right direction and if he is under influence of the lobbies the time will change US policy.
Name Xs Andree Date: Jan 17, 2009
It is cognitive dissonance, the tendency to see something one desires in the possession of someone else, then to demonize them in order to justify taking that resource by force and brutality, while maintaining the illusion of morality within oneself. It is no secret what lies in the middle east, everyone knows what we want, and why we want to "rid ourselves" of the meddlesome people who have full rights to the resources under their feet.

The American public is fed this lie that the middle eastern mind is inscrutable, deceptive and its motivations cannot be clearly understood, but when one looks at the historical record of what has been going on in the middle east for the last century, first by England, and now by the United States, the condition of the middle east, the desperation from which they fight, and the reasons why the region is torn with such violence and strife is plain to see.

Hands off. Peace is not difficult. The United States is not intervening to bring peace or democracy to the Middle East, only misery and slavery. With our "unassailable might" the US has blocked every attempt at real democracy and peace in the region. Wake up, people are people, they work and hope and dream the same as we do. Don't let them tell you that these people are not human, or that this is all impossible to sort out.

We just have to stop looking at the Middle East with Dollar$ in our eyes.

Name Yahovah Date: Jan 18, 2009
Jewish Women Occupy Israeli Consulate in Toronto full story http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ln0zFRg0kRU
Name Jamsston, Date: Jan 24, 2009
It's not easy to forget the Killing of millions, men, women, & children, in IRAQ, PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN, GAZA, LEBANON, and SUDAN,etc by three mad countries: UK, ISRAEL, USA (& also NATO).
Name Andy Nowak - a free observer Date: Jan 26, 2009
Dear "writer", it is difficult not to arrive to conclusion after reading your article, that - with all the respect - you sound like a straight-from-college (ultra liberal) socialist and a blind Obama's Utopia believer. What you wrote is so far from reality (like many articles on this side) and filled up with twisted facts that one can wonder: are you real American or maybe undercover jihadist? How about some reality check, hmm? Israel is THE ONLY!!! civilized nation in the region. They are the only reasonable people that can be trusted. Their only one goal is to pursue the wright to exist, and for US to switch sides would be aborting our very principles that America was always standing for. I know, I know you say that Palestinians also want to exist. Well, sorry, but not as a terrorist state. So for starter how about not electing Hamas in the future to be their leaders. That would be the first step to their sovereignty. I am surprise how much patience Israel has to put up with this barbarians, and if teaching young kids in school to become suicide killers of crowd of innocent people is not barbaric then I don't know what is. So please don't tell me to wake up or that people are people. You the one who should wake up to reality and see what the real dream is of some of those so call "People" that you refer to. Their dream is that after they annihilate the entire Jewish state, they want you and all Americans dead. How about this for dream? But of course you would not know this because your liberal/antiamerican teachers would never talk about it in classes. But maybe you learned something here. nowakam@sbcglobal.net
Name Xs Andree Date: Feb 21, 2009
Andy,
Israel just has a better funded lobby, and no oil under their feet. They are convenient because they do all the fighting for the US with our gear. Ask yourself if the Israel state (not the people) is so rational, why did they sell US arms to Iran for an entire decade during the Iraq/Iran conflict? At the same time, the United States was backing Saddam Hussein, selling him arms to fight Iran. At first glance one might think that Israel isn't our ally, after all, they were backing the people who were fighting the people we were backing... But it isn't like the US doesn't KNOW that Isreal was selling our arms to Iran, of course we know, it is a matter of public knowledge and record now.

So...why was the US encouraging Iraq to fight Iran, while the Israeli's were encouraging Iran to fight Iraq. Concluding that Israel's defense is underwritten by US arms and that we are EXTREMELY close allies, one might consider that a bloody Iran/Iraq conflict was the goal all along.

So, ask yourself as well, why did no one protest WHILE Saddam was gassing Iranians with VX gas purchased from the US? Not like we didn't know he was making them. Several chemical companies were filling orders of multi-use chemicals, which are not to be sold to terrorist states, to Iraq. There is a public record of them making sure that these sales were ok. The DOD gave them the Green Light, because at the time, Saddam was our guy in the region. We knew what he was going to use it for, we wanted him to use it, and no outcry went up when he did.

It wasn't until after the invasion of Kuwait that anyone said a thing about war crimes. On that note as well, the entire region had already worked out a deal between Kuwait and Iraq, which both countries were amenable to after the invasion. The US didn't like the deal that was being struck, and intervened on it's OWN behalf to attack Iraq.

And let's talk about all those fundamentalist radical islamic terrorist groups for a moment... Where did they get their training? Where did they get their weaponry, their connections to black market arms? This didn't just appear out of thin air. Ask yourself who Hekmatyar is (Afganistan) and how he was tied to Osama Bin Laden. Find out who Savak were, and who trained them. Find out what the Iranians know about CIA activities in their country in 1953, which overthrew a democratically elected prime minister (Mossadegh) in the interests of Oil.

Do your own thinking for once, use the freedom you have, or you are going to lose it.

 
You may add a new comment here. It will not appear on this page until it has been approved by the moderator.
Your Name:
Comment:
 
Contact FPIF's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2009, Institute for Policy Studies.
 

Support FPIF

You Might Also Like:
 

Related Mideast Coverage

Bipartisan Attack on International Humanitarian Law
Nov 4, 2009

Toward an Abrahamic Peace
Oct 9, 2009

The Goldstone Report: Killing the Messenger
Oct 7, 2009