|
|
|
Jewish World Review Feb. 26, 2010 / 12 Adar 5770 When rhetoric rules the roost By Caroline B. Glick
Take the EU's initial response to the killing of Hamas terror-master Mahmoud
al-Mabhouh in Dubai on January 20. A senior terrorist engaging in the
illegal purchase of illicit arms from Iran for Hamas-controlled Gaza is
killed in his hotel room. The same Dubai authorities who had no problem with
hosting a wanted international terrorist worked themselves into a frenzy
condemning his killing. And of course, despite the fact that any number of
governments, (Egypt and Jordan come to mind), and rival terrorist
organizations, (Fatah, anyone?) had ample reason to wish to see Mabhouh
dead, Dubai's police chief Lt. Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim blamed Israel.
Not only did he blame Israel, to substantiate his claims, Tamim released
what he said was video footage of alleged Mossad operatives who entered
Dubai with European and Australian passports.
Relying only on Tamim's allegations - EU leaders went into high dudgeon.
Ignoring the nature of the operation, the basic lack of credibility of the
source of information, and the very interests of Europe in defeating
jihadist terrorism in the Middle East and worldwide, the chanceries of
Europe squawked indignantly and threatened to cut off intelligence
cooperation with Israel.
In Britain for instance, Foreign Office sources told the *Daily Telegraph*,
"If the Israelis were responsible for the assassination in Dubai, they are
seriously jeopardizing the important intelligence-sharing arrangement that
currently exists between Britain and Israel."
It reportedly took the intervention of the highest echelons of Europe's
intelligence agencies to get their hysterical politicians and diplomats to
stop blaming and threatening Israel. After being dressed down, on Monday,
the chastened EU foreign ministers abstained from mentioning Israel by name
in their joint condemnation of the alleged use of European passports by the
alleged operatives who allegedly killed the terrorist Mabhouh.
And lucky they held their tongues. Because on Tuesday Tamim claimed that
after the hit, at least two of the alleged members of the alleged
assassination team departed Dubai for Iran. It's hard to imagine Mossad
officers feeling safer in Iran than in Dubai at any time and certainly it is
hard to see why they would flee to Iran after killing an Iranian-sponsored
terrorist.
What the initial European reaction to Tamim's allegations shows is that
blaming Israel has become Europe's default foreign policy. It apparently
never occurred to the Europeans that Israel might not be responsible for the
hit. And it certainly never occurred to them that cutting off intelligence
ties with Israel will harm them more than Israel.
They didn't think of the latter of course because Europe has no idea of what
its interests are. All it knows is how to sound off authoritatively.
This has not always been the case. It was after all Europe that brought the
world the art of rational statecraft. Once upon a time, Europe's leaders
understood that a nation's foreign policy was supposed to be based on its
national interests. To advance their nation's interests, governments would
adopt certain policies. And to facilitate the success of those policies they
developed rhetorical arguments to explain and defend them.
Contemporary European statecraft stands this traditional foreign policy
model on its head. Today rhetoric rules the roost. If actions are taken at
all, they are adopted in the service of rhetoric. As to national interests,
well, the Lisbon Treaty which effectively bars EU member states from
adopting independent foreign policies took care of those.
With national interests subordinated to the whims of bureaucrats in
Brussels, Europe does little of value in the international arena. As for its
rhetoric, as the EU's rush to threaten Israel for allegedly killing a
terrorist shows, it is cowardly, ineffectual and self-defeating.
If the Mossad did in fact kill Mabhouh then the operation was an instance in
which Israel distinguished itself from its European detractors by acting,
rather than preening.
Unfortunately, such instances are increasingly the exception rather than the
rule. Over the past sixteen years or so, Israel largely descended into the
European statecraft abyss. Rather than use rhetoric to explain policies
adopted to advance its national interests, successive Israeli governments
have adopted policies geared toward strengthening their rhetoric which
itself stands in opposition to Israel's national interests.
Take Israel's positions on Iran and the Palestinians for instance. Regarding
the Iranians, Israel's national interest is to prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons. Today the only way to secure this interest is to use force
to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.
Given Iran's leaders' absolute commitment to developing nuclear weapons, no
sanctions - regardless of how "crippling" they are supposed to be - will
convince them to curtail their efforts to build and deploy their nuclear
arsenal.
Beyond that, and far less importantly, the Russians and the Chinese will
refuse to implement "crippling sanctions," against Iran.
In light of these facts, it is distressing that Israel's leaders have made
building an international coalition in support of "crippling" sanctions
against Iran their chief aim. And this is not merely a rhetorical flourish.
Over the past several weeks and months, Israel's top leaders have devoted
themselves to lobbying foreign governments to support sanctions against
Iran. Last week Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu went to Moscow to gin up
support from sanctions from the Russian government. This week Defense
Minister Ehud Barak traveled to the UN and the State Department and
Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon flew off to Beijing just to lobby
senior officials to support sanctions.
It isn't simply that this behavior doesn't contribute anything to Israel's
ability to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. They harm Israel's ability
to do so if only by diverting our leaders' focus from where it should be:
preparing the IDF to strike and preparing the country to withstand whatever
the after effects of such a strike would be. Moreover, by calling for
sanctions, Israel contributes to the delusion that sanctions are sufficient
to block Iran's race to the nuclear finishing line.
As for the Palestinian issue, it is fairly clear that at a minimum, Israel's
interest is to secure its control over the areas of Judea and Samaria that
it requires to protect its Jewish heritage and its national security. But it
is hard to think of anything the government has done in its year in office
to advance that basic interest.
It is argued that Israel's interest in maintaining good relations with the
US administration trumps its interest in strengthening its control over
areas in Judea and Samaria that it deems vital. The problem with this
argument is that it takes for granted that Israel can determine the status
of its relations with the US administration. In the case of the Obama
administration, it is abundantly clear that this is not the case.
President Barack Obama and his senior advisors have demonstrated repeatedly
that they are interested in weakening - not strengthening - the US alliance
with Israel. This past week the administration condemned Israel for defining
the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem as
national heritage sites. The fact that they are national heritage sites is
so obvious that even President Shimon Peres defended the move.
Moreover, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen
reiterated for the millionth time this week that he opposes military strikes
against Iran's nuclear installations. That is, for the millionth time, the
top US military officer effectively said that he prefers a nuclear armed
Iran to an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear installations.
In the interest of strengthening Israel's ties with a hostile
administration, the Netanyahu government has adopted rhetoric on the
Palestinian issue that is harmful to Israel's national interests. It
declared its support for a Palestinian state despite the fact that such a
state will define itself through its devotion to Israel's destruction.
It has outlawed Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria despite the fact
that the move simply legitimizes the Palestinians' bigoted demand that Jews
be barred from living in Judea and Samaria.
And it has advocated on behalf of Palestinian leaders like Mahmoud Abbas and
Salam Fayyad who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist.
Indeed, if Israel were to reject the European model and craft a foreign
policy that advanced its national interests, one of its first acts would be
to point out that the unelected Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is
not a man of peace.
Just this week, Fayyad threatened to respond with a religious war to
Israel's classification of the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb in
Bethlehem as national heritage sites. Last Friday he joined rioters at
Bi'ilin to attack Israel's security fence. Fayyad has taken a lead role in
the campaign to implement an international boycott of Israeli products. Over
the past couple of years he has sought to take control over the PA's
security forces not to fight terror, but to prevent Israel from fighting
terror. Finally, since the Hamas victory in the PA legislative elections in
2006, he has overseen the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to
Hamas.
In short, Fayyad, a former World Bank employee, is not a "moderate," as his
supporters in the US and Europe claim. He is a fiscally sound terror
financier and sponsor, actively waging war against Israel.
Recent reports indicate that IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi
Ashkenazi - who strangely received a nice medal from Mullen two years ago -
is the main opponent of an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear
installations. If this is true, then Ashkenazi must either be forced to
change his position or lose his job. The Iranian threat is too great to
place in the hands of a commander the US reportedly views as its "friend" in
Israel's decision-making circles.
As for the Palestinians, the situation will not be remedied simply by firing
a few incompetent office holders. For 16 years, in the interest of enhancing
the country's ties with Europe, and to a lesser degree with the US,
successive Israeli governments have ignored Israel's vital national interest
in maintaining its control over Judea and Samaria. Indeed, they have
preferred Euro-friendly, and Israel-unfriendly rhetoric to the sober-minded
pursuit of Israel's national interest.
Yet as Europe's immediate response to the Dubai operation makes clear,
Europe itself has abandoned the sober-minded pursuit of its own interests in
favor of cowardly, feckless, self-defeating rhetoric. Obviously Europe
should favor Israel over a Hamas terrorist. But in its current state of
strategic imbecility, no European leader can acknowledge this basic fact.
Consequently, Europe may well be doomed.
To avoid Europe's encroaching fate, Israel must abandon its current course.
The purpose of rhetoric is to support policies adopted in the pursuit of a
nation's interests. And Israel has interests in need of urgent advancement.
Interested in a private Judaic studies instructor — for free? Let us know by clicking here.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
| ||||||||||
