YORAM ETTINGER; WHEN NETANYAHU MET OBAMA
When Netanyahu Met Obama
Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: A US-Israel Initiative”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4074019,00.html
The May 20, 2011 meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President
Obama highlighted the unbridgeable gap between the two.
Netanyahu cannot bridge the gap between himself and Obama, as long as the
President assumes that the ethnic, religious, tribal and ideological violent
power struggles on the Arab Street constitute “a story of
self-determination” and “the vanguard of democracy.”
Netanyahu cannot bridge the gap between himself and Obama as long as the
President’s world view is heavily influenced/shaped by his senior advisors:
Valery Jarrett, who is the favorite of Muslim organizations in the US,
Ambassador Susan Rice, who considers Israel part of the exploiting Western
World and the Palestinians part of the exploited Third Word and Samantha
Power, who is one of Israel’s harshest critics in the US. In addition,
Obama considers Prof. Rashid Khalidi, who was a key PLO spokesman in the US,
a luminary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Netanyahu cannot bridge the gap between himself and Obama, as long as the
President’s underlying assumption is that the Palestinian issue is the root
cause of Middle East turbulence, the core cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism
and the crown jewel of Arab policy-making. Obama ignores the fact that
recent intra-Arab turmoil – as was the case with the intra-Arab turmoil of
the last 1,400 years – has been totally independent of the Palestinian
issue, of the Arab-Israeli conflict, of Israel’s policies or of Israel’s
existence. In fact, the recent turmoil has clarified the secondary/marginal
role played by the Palestinian issue in shaping Middle East developments in
general, and Arab priorities in particular.
Netanyahu cannot bridge the gap between himself and Obama, as long as the
President assumes that Israel can be secure – in the most violent and
volatile region of the world – within the 1967 borders. Such borders would
rob the Jewish State of its Cradle of History and would reduce its waistline
to 9-15 miles (over-towered by the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria):
the distance between JFK and LaGuardia airports, between the Kennedy Center
and RFK Stadium, between Columbia University and Wall Street and the length
of DFW airport. How can the gap be bridged when Obama does not realize the
correlation between Middle East instability, uncertainty, volatility and
violence on one hand, and security requirements on the other hand?! Recent
seismic developments in Arab countries have intensified Israel’s security
requirements, dramatically enhancing the strategic value of the mountain
ridges of Judea and Samaria.
How can the gap be bridged when Obama considers the 1967 Lines, and not
hate-education in Abu Mazen’s schools, media and mosques, the crux of the
conflict?
Was Netanyahu’s criticizm of Obama’s focus on the 1967 Lines an
over-reaction?
Presidents Reagan and Bush attempted to impose territorial concessions on
Prime Minister Shamir. Shamir defied the pressure, expanded Jewish
communities in Judea and Samaria, was severely criticized, but engineered
unprecedented bilateral strategic cooperation. President Nixon presented
Prime Minister Golda Meir with the “Rogers Plan,” calling for a total
withdrawal. Golda reacted by constructing four new Jerusalem neighborhoods,
beyond the Green Line (150,000 residents). President Johnson pressured Prime
Minister Eshkol against building in East Jerusalem and reuniting Jerusalem.
Eshkol built beyond the Green Line and reunited the Capital of the Jewish
People. The US pressured Prime Minister Ben Gurion not to declare
independence, to end “occupation” in the Negev, to absorb Palestinian
refugees and accept the internationalization of the whole of Jerusalem. Ben
Gurion defied all demands.
The current disagreements between Netanyahu and Obama center on the
Palestinian issue, which is not a major component of US-Israel relations;
instead, that relationship is based on shared values, joint interests and
mutual threats, which have been intensified by the intra-Arab upheaval. This
upheaval underlines Israel as the only stable, credible, reliable, capable,
democratic and unconditional ally of the US.
Obama’s attitude toward the Jewish State represents a minority within the
Democratic Party, among all Americans and in Congress – the most authentic
representative of the American people – which has supported the idea of a
Jewish State since the 18th century. Congress possesses the power to
initiate policies and to suspend, amend or turn around presidential
policies.
Netanyahu should focus on enhanced US-Israel strategic cooperation, in the
face of turbulent Middle East reality, the mounting threats to US interests,
the absence of any reliable/capable Arab ally, the intensified Iranian
threat, the increased Russian and Chinese profile in the Middle East and the
concerns about a post-US-withdrawal eruption of an Iraqi volcano. He should
propose to Congress and to the President specific bilateral projects, which
expand US and Israel employment and export, while upgrading US and Israeli
national security, as well as the development of energy alternatives, water
technologies and homeland security.
Such projects would bolster the unique nature of US-Israel relations: A two
way mutually-beneficial street.
Comments are closed.
