Is Netanyahu ‘Apologizing to the Obama Administration’?
The concluding half of Ruthie Blum Leibowitz’s interview with Moshe Arens — former Israeli defense minister, foreign minister, and ambassador to the U.S.
Q: Are the Obama administration’s policies towards Israel a total about-face from the position of the Bush administration, which maintained there was a global struggle going on between the West and radical Islam, and that the Palestinian conflict belonged to that struggle? The current administration seems to be asserting that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only a phenomenon in and of itself, but that solving it is necessary to dealing with the rest of the world.
A: The major difference, again, is that this administration is taking its disagreements with the Israeli government public. If we look back at the history of U.S.-Israel relations, the last time we can discern this kind of a breach in the discourse was during the Eisenhower years. That was right after the Sinai Campaign, when Secretary of State [John Foster] Dulles publicly pressured Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion into moving the Israeli army out of the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, though Ben-Gurion was initially hesitant. The Eisenhower administration made no bones about its views on that subject, and hinted at additional pressures that might be forthcoming if Israel did not accept. That was in 1957. Here we are 53 years later.
Q: Why didn’t you mention the Carter administration in this context, as so many commentators have been doing of late?
A: Well, I don’t think we had a serious rift with the Carter administration, though we certainly might have had one, had Prime Minister Menachem Begin not accepted the terms that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat insisted on during negotiations at Camp David. President Carter might very well have come down on Sadat’s side. But we never got to that point, and in the final analysis, Carter was quite happy with the fact that Begin, after some convincing and maybe a little bit of discrete pressure, accepted the condition that there be a total withdrawal of Israeli forces and removal of Israeli settlements from the Sinai.
Q: Can Netanyahu be compared to Begin in this respect? After all, at the time, Begin seemed to be the least likely prime minister to give away territory. Netanyahu, today, is considered by many to be “intransigent.” Will the upshot in this case be similar? Will Netanyahu ultimately agree to withdraw to the 1967 borders?
A: It’s very unlikely. And the analogy is not entirely apt. Begin was quite doctrinaire, and what made it possible for him to agree to a total withdrawal from the Sinai was his view that it was not really part of the land of Israel. The fact is that he was not prepared to give an inch of the Gaza Strip, because he said it was part of the land of Israel.
This ran contrary to my own view, which was that Gaza was an area where concessions maybe should have, or could have, been made at the time, whereas the Sinai was of strategic importance to Israel. Furthermore, the very idea that a country that initiated and was defeated in three wars should have what it lost in battle returned is not only obnoxious, but sets a very bad precedent — one from which we suffer to this day.
But Begin looked at it in slightly different, more ideological, terms. To him, reaching peace with Egypt — which, of course, is an important achievement in itself — was so important that conceding the Sinai was in the realm of possibility. He didn’t like it, but he was prepared to do it.
Now, where Palestinian demands and conditions are concerned — demands such as the right of return and withdrawal to the ’67 borders — it’s a different story. First of all, the area in question is very close to home, literally and figuratively. Whereas the Sinai seemed to most Israelis to be quite far away, Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] are right next door to where most Israelis live. Not only that. Judea and Samaria, as integral parts of the biblical land of Israel, are also close to the hearts of most Israelis.
Finally, there are 300,000 Israelis living there. I therefore don’t believe that Netanyahu would be prepared to cede it.
What he has been doing, however, is apologizing to the Obama administration, which, as part of its maneuver to pressure Israel, declared it was insulted by the announcement that 1,600 housing units were being added to a Jerusalem neighborhood. The whole thing is really ludicrous. It all had to do with some clerk on the local planning commission and a meeting that happened to fall on the day of Vice President Joe Biden’s visit. But the Netanyahu government decided to play along and say, “You’re insulted? OK, we apologize.” It could have said, “You’re not insulted. There’s no reason to be insulted. You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Q: But would it have been wise for Netanyahu to respond that way?
A: Right after Obama’s speech in Cairo in June — where he said he was going to put the differences between his administration and the Israeli government on the table, and that Israel would have to stop all settlement activity — I was of the opinion that the Israeli government should have said, “With all due respect to the president of the U.S. and the U.S.-Israel friendship, we don’t takes orders. Jews have a right to live in Judea and Samaria, and it’s not going to be the Israeli government that prohibits them from living in any part of Israel.”
But then, too, the Netanyahu government decided to play along, at least partially, by declaring a temporary freeze on settlement activity. Maybe it’s their idea of how to outsmart the Obama administration. But Obama’s pretty smart, and I doubt it will work.
Q: How important is Israel’s relationship with Washington?
A: It’s very important; there’s no question about it. But the independence of the state of Israel is more important. To Israelis, anyway.
Q: When such a divide exists between the two governments, to what extent is Israel really at liberty to exert its will?
A: When I was ambassador in Washington, there was disagreement between us and the Reagan administration on a number of subjects. As a matter of fact, I assumed my post in February 1982, not long after the Iraqi nuclear reactor was destroyed by the Israel Air Force, and the administration didn’t like it at all. What I said at the time to my American interlocutors was that when we have disagreements, we should discuss them in private, and if we can’t resolve them, then one of us should defer. I said if it’s a matter of vital importance to the state of Israel, I would expect the U.S. to defer to us.
Now, the issues of settlements in Judea and Samaria, of Israel’s ability to defend itself, and of the conditions under which it can reach an accommodation with the Palestinians are of vital importance to the state of Israel. So I would expect that, if Israel and the U.S. are unable to resolve the disagreement on these issues, the US would defer to the Israeli point of view. But clearly that is not the position of this administration.
Let me first say that this was an excellent interview and I expected nothing less from Ruthie Blum and of course, Moshe Arens, one of Israel’s most understated and yet most important leaders.
Of course the Palestinians would like nothing more than to have the Obama Administration, in coordination with the European Union, and of course the United Nations, to cobble together a Palestinian Israel peace agreement and impose it on the Israelis. For the Palestinians this absolves them of any responsibility for negotiating in good faith with Israel in the meantime, and after imposing the plan, it would equally absolve the Palestinians from actually implementing any of it’s provisions since they could and likely would argue that this agreement was forced on them by outside parties, was not voluntarily agreed to by them, and therefore cannot be said to be a binding agreement.
But let me take this whole thing just one more step further. If any agreement is actually imposed on the Israeli side it would also be imposed on the Palestinian side as well. While there is no doubt in my mind that any international peace settlement devised would heavily favor the Palestinian side, in order for it to stand any chance of success, it would need to have at least a bone or two for the Israeli side. Any Palestinian Israeli peace agreement must contain three clauses that take effect as of the date of imposition of the agreement. The first is that the state of war or conflict or resistance between the two sides is ended, completely and utterly. The only venue for solving disputes will be negotiation between the sides. The second that no further demands of any kind will be made by either side on the other, no financial compensation demands, no further territorial demands, no population exchange or demographic alteration demands, all these demands are considered to have been fully settled by the agreement. And finally the most important condition, that the Palestinians recognize as unassailably legitimate the Jewish character of the State of Israel and Israel’s right to live in peace and security in established, secure, and permanent borders.
None of which any Palestinian leader or resident, nor any Arab leader or citizen, will under any circumstances accept, not to mention the obvious fact that any Palestinian or Arab leader who did accept these conditions would almost certainly be assassinated immediately.
Israel, on the other hand, whether led by a Left wing appeaser, a Nationalist hard liner, a Religious extremist, or even a shaky and unstable coalition of the three, would accept practically any agreement, imposed or negotiated, which included the three conditions I outlined above.
So I call upon Obama, the EU, and the UN to go full steam ahead with whatever plan, or settlement, or agreement, or whatever they want to call it and then try to impose it on the Palestinians. I’ll stand outside and watch as this latest attempt to pacify the Middle East is shot to pieces and crashes and burns, as has happened to every ill advised and ill starred peace settlement suggested by a well meaning but hopelessly out of touch and impossibly misinformed international community.
Ahens said, “So if you were to bet on a two-state solution’s coming about in the near future, you’d be doing so against all odds.”
1) Obama wants a Palestinian state.
2) He is not interest in what happens after its establishment.
3) He will continue his current arms embargo to Israel.
4) He will abandon Israel in the United Nations, allowing international intervention to obtain such a state.
5) Obama will do nothing that is effective to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, because America is not ‘immediately’ threatened.
6) Obama will use Israeli action against Iran as an excuse to further distance America from Israel, thus ingratiating itself momentarily into the good graces of Arab governments. He does not care that he has started an atomic nuclear arms race in the Middle East as long as he can abandon Israel. A nuclear arms race will further reduce Israel’s deterrent edge, again, Mr. Obama’s goal.
All the 6 points?
I don’t think all these 6 will occur or Obama are after all of them.
ethicMinds
george kyaw naing
Israel should publically ask Obama what is the difference in no blacks in my part of Washington (any city) and no Jews in parts of Jerusalem.
If no Jews allowed in Arab areas, does that mean the US demands no Arabs in Israel?
Why, Mr Obama, is it different?
Israel should not expect fairness from Obummer. Any American president who bows to the king of Saudi Arabia should not be trusted.
By 2012 Iran will probably have nuclear short and long range missles. It is at least a 90% probability.
If the Iranian leaders really believe in the mahdi, what would happen at that point needs to be acted upon now. We all know that’s not going to be.
I disagree with Mr. Arens on one point. It will not be hundreds of nukes, but it will not be 2 or 3 either. Think one or two dozen. Israel will not be the only target. Any enemy in range is fair game to the Iranians.
I said before and say again. Europe, the US, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and The US Navy in the Persian Gulf are the targets as well as Israel.
Think this through. Any army is 90% logistics. Taking out the US Navy, Saudi Arabia and Israel leaves no viable ground option and probably decimates most of our air power. If they were able to hit Diego Garcia, the matters are even more dire.
From an Iranian point of view, they might see a strategic victory. The tacticle losses may seem justifiable from their point of view.
The first would be a tremendous dimishment of opposing military forces.
The second is the sought after chaos to precede the return of the mahdi.
IMHO Russia and China are playing a game that will bite them. This scenario is not good for anybody, but again IMHO, it’s what will happen.
You forgot a couple things that mean your conclusions are probably not correct.
1)Taleban/Al Qaeda ( both of which are the brainchild, creation, and dependant of middle east intelligence agencies in a: good cop bad cop scam…)
2) Al Qaeda does not leave clues at seen…
Therefore: You could/will get hit and never know who hit you…eg: ied…sub…
Iran is “terror central”; judging only from USA “actions” (words are worthless as predictors when in conflict with actions) the USA is committed to keeping the “terrorist that parade as religious in Iran and committed that Iran should have nuclear weapons ASAP. Wake up…
Actually, Bush down played the Islamic angle to the conflict. Peace in Palestine was to come by way of Teheran and Damascus–the “axis of evil” which included North Korea for its proliferation activities. Taking out Afghanistan and Iraq’s Sadam was step one in democratizing the Middle East. The problem is that step two, taking out Damascus and Teheran, did not occur after liberating Baghdad. There was no Arab uprising for “democracy,” and when it did happen in Iran lately, Obama wasn’t interested. Promoting democracy is too “exceptional.” So the funding of Islamic terror organizations continues, via the Saudis and the Iranians, and the Europeans in the form of aid. So Americans are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, basically dealing with Syrian and Iranian supported proxy violence. The current administration consensus seems to be make a deal, cut their losses, go for containment, and call it a day. Problem is, containment hasn’t worked with Islam and Israel can’t afford to be so sanguine. And the Iranians control the level of violence to keep the Americans tied down and distracted. And of course, peace in Palestine on Iranian terms means the end of Israel. And Israel doesn’t need the American’s permission to exist.
There is no good/bad cop. Only bad cop. Both organizations may look to iran for support, but they are their own entities capable of reacting in their own interests outside of Iran’s.
Nuclear weapons leave a trail. It would be clear who built them.
Second, if the Iranians are to be believed, the attacks would be open. Again based on military and religeous motivations, I would anticipate multiple attacks, unannounced and simultaneously. This allows for greater effctiveness and would hope to minimize conventional counterattacks.
Your last comment is unclear. But I won’t be. Iran will have many nukes.
The last question is will they be used or not. Place your bets on that.
Don…Agree with you, but will take it one addiional step. The money spent on mosques throughout Europe and the US are part of a strategic attack. The Saudis are the main contributer. Everything I hear and read has led me to conclude islam, all of it is a problem. These mosques are used to project power. Subtley for now. Listen to the dogma. It is consistent and relentless.
So Mr. Bush was wrong. If you do not understand the essence of the problem, you cannot solve it.
Humorous cartoon on how the White House treated Netanyahu and the Dalai Lama at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/category/politics/
I am guessing that the list of the hotheads in Gaza, Judea & Samaria, who place Arab interests ahead of Jewish interests – that list is in the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel.
My suggestion is this: present them with an either/or case. The status quo is no longer permitted. Either they wind up as a corpse in a pigskin shroud, or they change who they are on in the inside to accept peace with Israel.
After all, people are accountable for their decisions. Or, are there people who want to go back to the days where the actions of those who have clout are the only one’s who matter, and the sweepings can do anything they want, because what they do does not matter.
The Muslim Palestinians ( yes there are Jewish and Christian Palestinians too ) currently control 80% of the territory of Palestine. On that 80% they have three operating governments. One in Jordan, one in the West Bank and one in Gaza. Despite the fact that Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years Muslims refuse to recognize any Jewish rights what so ever. The current violence in Hebron is a case in point. The Jewish neighborhood in Hebron comprises only 3% of the town. In that neighborhood 800 Jews live surrounded by 30,000 Muslims. Hebron and its religious sites have been holy to Jews for 2700 years before Mohammed was even born. Yet the Muslims wish to deny Jewish rights to worship in Hebron. The Israeli army is not called in to harass the muslim population. It is there to prevent a repeat of the the 1929 massacre when the muslims rioted and murdered Jewish men, women and children. It is time for people to look at the history of Palestine and ask themselves the following- Why do the Palestinians require more than the 80% of Palestine they already control? Why do the Palestinians refuse to recognize Jewish rights to areas that were Jewish before Mohammed was born? Why are the Palestinians so interested in building on top of Christian and Jewish Holy sites? Why have the Palestinians driven the Christian community from Bethlehem? Why do the Palestinians indoctrinate their children to hate rather than live in peace? Only when these questions are answered, only when Jordan, which occupies 77% of Palestine, is asked to accept its historical obligations, will there be peace in the region.