|
|
|
Jewish World Review May 22, 2009 / 28 Iyar 5769 Strip away the smiles from the Obama-Bibi press conference and we are Left with obsessive, delusional behavior By Caroline B. Glick
Obama showed his hand on Iran in three ways. First, he set a non-binding
timetable of seven months for his policy of appeasement and engagement of
the ayatollahs to work. That policy, he explained will only be implemented
after next month's Iranian presidential elections. And those direct
US-Iranian talks must be given at least six months to show results before
they can be assessed as successful or failed.
But Israel's military intelligence has assessed that six months may be too
long to wait. By the end of the year, Iran's nuclear program may be
unstoppable. And Iran's successful test of its solid fuel Sejil-2 missile
with a two thousand kilometer range on Wednesday merely served to show the
urgency of the situation. Obviously the mullahs are not waiting for Obama to
convince them of the error of their ways.
Beyond the fact that Obama's nonbinding timeline is too long, there is his
"or else." Obama made clear that in the event that in December or January he
concludes that the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, the most
radical step he will be willing to take will be to consider escalating
international sanctions against Teheran. In the meantime, at his urging,
Congressman Howard Berman, Chairman of the House International Affairs
Committee has tabled a bill requiring sanctions against oil companies that
export refined fuel into Iran.
Finally there was Obama's contention that the best way for the US to
convince Iran to give up its nuclear program is by convincing Israel to give
away more land to the Palestinians. As Obama put it, "To the extent that we
can make peace with the Palestinians -- between the Palestinians and the
Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international
community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat."
This statement encapsulates the basic lack of seriousness and fundamental
mendacity of Obama's approach to "dealing with a potential Iranian threat."
Iran has made clear that it wants Israel destroyed. The mullahs don't care
how big Israel is. Their missiles are pointing at Tel Aviv not Beit El.
As for the international community, the Russians and Chinese have not been
assisting Iran's nuclear and missile programs for the past fifteen years
because there is no Palestinian state. They have been assisting Iran because
they think a strong Iran weakens the US. And they are right.
The Arab states, for their part are already openly siding with Israel
against Iran. The establishment of a Palestinian state will not make their
support for action to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to dominate the
region any more profound.
On the face of it, Obama's obsessive push for a Palestinian state makes
little sense. The Palestinians are hopelessly divided. It is not simply that
Hamas rules the Gaza Strip and Fatah controls Judea and Samaria. Fatah
itself is riven by division. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's
appointment of the new PA government under Salam Fayyad was overwhelmingly
rejected by Fatah leaders. Quite simply, today there is no coherent
Palestinian leadership that is either willing or capable of reaching an
accord with Israel.
And as for the prospects for peace itself, given that there is little
distinction between the anti-Semitic bilge broadcast daily in Gaza by
Hamas-controlled media, and the anti-Semitic bilge broadcast daily in Judea
and Samaria by the Fatah/Abbas/Fayyad-controlled media, those prospects
aren't looking particularly attractive. That across-the-board anti-Semitic
incitement has engendered the current situation where Hamas and Fatah
members and supporters are firmly united in their desire to see Israel
destroyed. This was made clear on Thursday morning when a Fatah policeman in
Kalkilya used his US-provided rifle to open fire on IDF forces engaged in a
counter-terror operation in the city.
Given that the establishment of a Palestinian state will have no impact on
Iran's nuclear program, and in light of the fact that under the present
circumstances any Palestinian state will be at war against Israel, and
assuming that Obama is not completely ignorant of the situation on the
ground, there is only one reasonable explanation for Obama's urgent desire
to force Israel support the creation of a Palestinian state and work for its
establishment by expelling hundreds of thousands of Israelis from their
homes. Quite simply, it is a way to divert attention away from Obama's
acquiescence to Iran's nuclear aspirations.
By making the achievement of the unachievable goal of making peace between
Israel and the Palestinians through the establishment of a Palestinian
terror state the centerpiece of his Middle East agenda, Obama is able to
cast Israel as the region's villain. This aim is reflected in the
administration's intensifying pressure on Israel to destroy Israeli
communities in Judea and Samaria. In portraying Jews who live in mobile
homes on barren hilltops in Judea and Samaria -- rather than Iranian mullahs
who test ballistic missile while enriching uranium and inciting genocide --
as the greatest obstacle to peace, the Obama administration not only seeks
to deflect attention away from its refusal to prevent Iran from acquiring
nuclear weapons. It is also setting Israel up as the fall guy who it will
blamed after Iran emerges as a nuclear power.
Obama's intention to unveil his Middle East peace plan in the course of his
speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, like his decision to opt out
of visiting Israel in favor of visiting a Nazi death camp, make clear that
he does not perceive Israel as either a vital ally or even as a partner in
the peace process he wishes to initiate. Israeli officials were not
consulted about his plan. Then too, from the emerging contours of his plan,
it is clear that he will be offering something that no Israeli government
can accept.
According to media reports, Obama's plan will require Israel to withdraw its
citizens and its military to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. It will
provide for the free immigration of millions of Israel-hating Arabs to the
Palestinian state. And it seeks to represent all of this as in accord with
Israel's interests by claiming that after Israel renders itself
indefensible, all 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference
(including Iran) will "normalize" their relations with Israel. In short,
Obama is using his peace plan to castigate the Netanyahu government as the
chief destabilizing force in the region.
During his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu succeeded in evading the policy
traps Obama set for him. Netanyahu reserved Israel's right to act
independently against Iran and he conceded nothing substantive on the
Palestinian issue. While itself no small achievement, Netanyahu's successful
deflection of Obama's provocations are not a sustainable strategy. Already
on Tuesday the administration began coercing Israel to toe its line on Iran
and the Palestinians by engaging it in joint "working groups." Then too, the
government's destruction of an outpost community in Judea on Thursday was
perceived as Israeli buckling to US pressure. And it doubtlessly raised
expectations for further expulsions in the near future.
So what must Netanyahu do? What would a strategy to contain the Obama
administration's pressure and maintain international attention on Iran look
like?
Under the present circumstances, the Netanyahu government's best bet is to
introduce its own peace plan to mitigate the impact of Obama's plan. To
blunt the impact of Obama's speech in Cairo, Netanyahu should present his
peace plan before June 4.
Such a plan should contain three stages. First, in light of the Arab world's
apparent willingness to engage with Israel, Netanyahu should call for the
opening of direct talks between Israel and the Arab League or Israel and the
OIC regarding the immediate normalization of relations between Israel and
the Arab-Islamic world. Both Obama and Jordan's King Abdullah claim that
such normalization is in the offing. Israel should insist that it begin
without delay.
This of course is necessary for peace to emerge with the Palestinians. As we
saw at Camp David in 2000, the only way that Palestinian leaders will feel
comfortable making peace with Israel is if the Arab world first demonstrates
its acceptance of the Jewish state as a permanent feature on the Middle
East's landscape. Claims that such an Israeli demand is a mere tactic for
buying time can be easily brushed off. Given Jordanian and American claims
that the Arab world is willing to accept Israel, once negotiations begin,
this stage could be completed in a matter of months.
The second stage of the Israeli peace plan would involve Israel and the Arab
world agreeing and beginning to implement a joint program for combating
terrorism. This program would involve destroying terror networks, cutting
off funding for terror networks, and agreeing to arrest terrorists and
extradite them to the Hague or the US for trial. It should be abundantly
clear to all governments in the region that there can be no long term
regional peace or stability for as long as terrorists bent on destroying
Israel and overthrowing moderate Arab regimes are allowed to operate. So
making the implementation of such a join program a precondition for further
progress shouldn't pose an obstacle to peace. Indeed, there is no reason for
it to even be perceived as particularly controversial.
The final stage of the Israeli peace plan should be the negotiation of a
final status accord with the Palestinians. Only after the Arab world has
accepted Israel, and only after it has agreed to join Israel in achieving
the common goal of a terror-free Middle East can there be any chance that
the Palestinians will feel comfortable and free to peacefully coexist with
Israel. And Israel, of course, will feel much more confident about living at
peace with the Palestinians after the Arab world demonstrates its good faith
and friendship to the Jewish state and its people.
Were Netanyahu to offer this plan in the next two weeks, he would be able to
elude Obama's trap on June 4 by proposing to discuss both plans with the
Arab League. In so doing, he would be able to continue to make the case that
Iran is the gravest danger to the region without being demonized as a
destabilizing force and an enemy of peace.
Whether Netanyahu advances such a peace plan or not, what became obvious
this week is that his greatest challenges in office will be to prevent Iran
from acquiring nuclear weapons while preventing the Obama administration
from blaming Israel for the absence of peace.
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.
| ||||||||||
