JEWS WITH SHORT TERM MEMORIES: JERROLD L. SOBEL
Some of my fellow tribesmen, particularly those stuck like glue to the Democratic Party have short term memory loss when it comes to Barak Obama and his relationship to Israel. With the selective amnesia they have shown over the recent tragedy and coverup in Benghazi, they forget or wish not to remember the diplomatic hostility the Obama Administration has shown to Israel and its democratically elected government headed by Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Just 16 months ago, on May 19, 2011, a day before Prime Minister Netanyahu was to arrive in Washington for consultations with him, President Obama gave what many Jewish supporters consider his infamous, “we believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.”
Continuing the mantra that has defined his presidency from the outset; borders and Israeli settlements, this President has been obsessed with the notion that this issue is the major impediment of peace in the Middle East. This was a radical shift in Mideast American foreign policy and in effect had taken a trump bargaining chip away from the Israelis in the event negotiations ever were to restart.
Following the speech, the Israeli government quickly responded the ’67 “borders” would leave it “indefensible.” For those old enough to remember him, famed Israeli diplomat and brilliant orator, Abba Eban, once referred to these “borders” as the Auschwitz lines.
In reaction to what he surely must have considered a sandbagging, Netanyahu from his plane had an angry phone conversation with his arch nemesis of the previous year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which the Prime Minister demanded the President cut the reference to the ’67 borders. But despite frantic requests to the State Department, the President refused to alter his statement.
Increasingly showing his hand and captivated by what he and his Administration deem “settlements,” Obama’s speech was a follow up to a contrived incident 15 months prior on March 9, 2010 during a visit to Israel by Vice President Biden.
During the Vice President’s stay, Israel’s Interior Ministry announced the construction of 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Biden in his inimical way condemned the move by stating it was, “precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.” There was more to come.
Despite the fact the housing plan was three years in the making no amount of placation could soothe Obama’s wrath and that of his Administration. Taking the announcement as a personal insult, Biden condemned, “the substance and timing of the announcement.”
What was not recognized by many at the time, such exception to housing in East Jerusalem ushered in a new diplomatic turn in American/Israeli relations. For the first time, an American Administration was shown not to unequivocally recognize Jerusalem as the eternal capitol of Israel. As we would see during the Democratic convention this past summer, it was not to be the last time.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not one to be outdone by Biden in hostility got into the act by publicly proclaiming the housing announcement a deeply negative signal.” According to published reports, she placed a 43 minute phone call to Prime Minister Netanyahu lambasting him over the housing announcement claiming it endangered indirect peace talks with the Palestinians. “Indirect peace talks,” that’s the operative term. Since construction in Jerusalem and the “West Bank” never precluded talks between Israel and the Palestinians before, it left one to wonder if pronouncements by Mrs. Clinton and her boss actually were the impediment to direct peace talks. After all, long before their interjections, Fatah and the heinous Arafat for many years still negotiated with Israel.
Going back in time another year to November 25, 2009. Not agreeing with but willing to assuage Obama’s preoccupation with the “settlement” issue, Netanyahu imposed a 10 month moratorium on housing construction in Judea/Samaria (West Bank). He deemed it “a painful step that will encourage the peace process” and urged the Palestinians to respond in kind. Never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, Mahmoud Abbas Continued his unabridged recalcitrance ostensibly because the freeze did not apply to pre-approved housing already in construction.
In an attempt to move the process along and further entice the Palestinian Authority back to the table, Israel even halted construction in areas not effected by the housing freeze. On July 19, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu froze a major construction project in Pisgat Ze’ev as a “diplomatic gesture” to the United States. What did Netanyahu receive for this gesture? Displeasure from Obama for construction of homes not covered by the agreement.
In the end, what was accomplished by the 10 month moratorium? Absolutely nothing. Except for further recriminations, there was no movement from the Palestinian side. As such, Netanyahu refused its extension unless the Palestinian Authority recognized Israel as a Jewish state. Needless to say that didn’t happen, Abbas was categorically dismissive of this, and continued to refuse negotiations unless Israel extended the freeze. A classic game of Ring around the Rosy in which Netanyahu was widely condemned by European nations but most disturbingly by the man in which he began this endeavor to begin with, the President of the United States.
Treating Netanyahu like a Mexican Pinata throughout his presidency, Obama snubbed Netanyahu for dinner with Michelle and the girls on March 25, 2010. According to the Telegraph and other published reports, Netanyahu was left to stew in the White House after the President abruptly walked out of tense talks and instaed had dinner with his wife and daughters. A far cry from the treatment Netanyahu had received during the prior two days where he was warmly greeted by members of the Congress and was given a standing ovation by the powerful lobby group AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.
It begs the question, why was the President so angry? Obama was miffed and declined conciliation with the Prime Minister for you guessed it, the settlement issue. Forget dinner, Obama presented Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed to end the feud with the Administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Amongst the demands was a call to end all settlement construction in East Jerusalem, the Israeli capital. To most in the Israeli advocacy community, including this writer, the perception of a role change in American/Israel diplomacy was further accentuated and unmistakable. The President was no longer an impartial mediator but had become a principle to the dispute.
Fast forward to the July 27, 2012 Press conference at the White House and this change in policy became even more self evident. Spokesman Jay Carney was asked by a female reporter what the capital of Israel was? Taken aback, Carney was at a momentary loss for words then sheepishly replied: “I haven’t gotten that question in a while.” Catching his composure, he continued, “our position has not changed.” Not letting go, the reporter adjacent to her continued to hound him. “Is it Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?” Now flushed and obviously embarrassed, the Press Secretary could only sophomorically reply, “you know our position.” The reporters may have but he sure didn’t.
Except to the willfully blind, the President’s facade of impartial broker in the Palestinian/Israeli dispute could no longer be hidden following the release of the 2012 Democratic party platform on Monday, September 3rd. As stated in a September 4, 2012 article by ABC news reporter, Chris Good: Democrats Shift Language on Israel, Remove ‘God-Given From Platform. Gone was the previous reference, “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
Gone also from the platform was the previous reference to Hamas, The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.”
As they’ve done from day 1 the White House went into complete obfuscation mode proclaiming: “The Obama Administration has followed the same policy towards Jerusalem that previous U.S. Administrations of both parties have done since 1967,” a DNC spokeswoman said of the change in platform language. “As the White House said several months ago, the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians – which we also said in the 2008 platform. We will continue to work with the parties to resolve this issue as part of a two state solution that secures the future of Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jewish people.” As he’s done throughout his 4 years, the President and his handlers were asking you to believe what he says not what he’s done.
In dread fear of alienating a good deal of his base amongst Jewish voters, the references to Jerusalem and ‘God’ were restored to the platform on September 5, 2012. Embarrassingly it was done by 3 voice votes taken which many in attendance feel was ramrodded through.
Chances are Obama had nothing to fear. A segment of the Jewish population either could care less or does indeed have short term memory regarding his dealings with Israel. They’re so intertwined with the Democratic Party that regardless his actions short of capital crime, the aforementioned slights and diplomatic space created between the United States and Israel by this President will not affect their allegiance to him.
Comments are closed.
