BY CAROLINE
B. GLICK
June 12/09. Ahead of
his current trip to the Middle East US President Barack Obama's Middle East
envoy George Mitchell made what might have been construed as a positive step
in Israel's direction. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Mitchell said that
he and Obama wish to restart peace negotiations between Israel and the
Palestinians immediately.
The reason Mitchell's
pronouncement might have been interpreted as a move in Israel's direction is
because until he made his call for negotiations, recent pronouncements on
Israel and the Palestinians by the president and his senior advisors have
given the uniform impression that the US no longer favors a negotiated
settlement of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Through their obsessive
focus on Israeli building activities in Judea and Samaria, Obama and his
advisors have sent regional leaders the message that they define their role
here not as mediators, but as agents for the Palestinians against Israel.
Consequently, far from giving the sense that they seek a peace deal that
will be acceptable to Israelis and Palestinians alike, they have convinced
the Israelis and the Palestinians - as well as much of the Arab world - that
the US intends to coerce Israel into accepting a settlement that sacrifices
Israeli security and national needs on the altar of maximalist Palestinian
ambitions.
This is the view that
Fatah leader and putative PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas expressed in his
interview with the Washington Post last month ahead of his visit with Obama.
As Abbas put it, the Americans "can use their weight with anyone around the
world. Two years ago they used their weight on us. Now they should tell the
Israelis, 'You have to comply with the conditions.'" Abbas added that he
will "wait for Israel to freeze settlements," and that until he receives
this and other Israeli concessions, "we can't talk to anyone."
In other words, in
light of the administration's apparent hostility and uncompromising stance
towards Israel, Abbas sees no reason to negotiate anything with the
Israelis. So too, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal made clear on Tuesday that he
sees the Obama administration as a potential ally for his Iranian-controlled
genocidal jihadist movement. Mashaal has four good reasons for viewing
things this way. First, in his speech in Cairo, Obama accepted the Arab view
that Israel is an alien entity to the Middle East which owes its legitimacy
to the genocide of European Jewry by Europeans in Europe, and which has the
moral standing of white slaveholders in the antebellum American south.
Second, Obama has
pledged $900 million in US taxpayer funds to Hamas-controlled Gaza and is
pressuring Israel to support Gaza economically in spite of the fact that
Hamas continues to attack southern Israel with rockets and to expand and
diversify its arsenals.
Third, the Obama
administration is abandoning its predecessor's bid to isolate Hamas by
pressuring Fatah and Egypt to offer Hamas full partnership in a Fatah-Hamas
unity government which would work to cement Hamas's international
legitimacy.
Finally, in light of
the White House's silence after Sunday's attempted attack on the IDF by a
Hamas-affiliated terror group in Gaza, Mashaal is operating under the
impression that nothing Hamas does will divert Washington from its collision
course with Israel. With Obama in charge, Hamas believes it can attack
Israel with impunity.
So with Israelis and
Palestinians now joined in their belief that Obama is looking for a fight
with Israel rather than a negotiated settlement, it was encouraging to hear
that Mitchell is planning on forcing the Palestinians to the negotiating
table with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government.
Unfortunately, within
hours of his arrival in Israel on Tuesday, it became clear that Mitchell's
statements about negotiations were nothing more than spin. Mitchell
reiterated that the US has no intention whatsoever of budging on its
uncompromising positions that no Jewish construction anywhere past the 1949
armistice lines is legitimate; that Israel must begin moving towards a mass
expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria; and that the IDF must drastically
curtail its counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria. That is,
Mitchell demonstrated that like the Palestinians and the Saudis, the Obama
administration's idea of a resolution of the Palestinian conflict with
Israel involves a complete Israeli surrender to all Arab (and now American)
demands while trusting our security to the tender mercies of Palestinian
terrorists.
More disturbing than
Mitchell's positions are his marching orders from Obama. Unlike previous
presidential envoys who have come to Israel every few weeks and then
disappeared when reality proved stronger than their peace fantasies, Obama
has ordered Mitchell to cast reality to the seven winds and set up a
permanent forward command post in Jerusalem directly subordinate to the
White House.
To fulfill his writ,
Mitchell has appointed four deputies - all known for their open sympathy for
the Palestinians and their hostility to the Netanyahu government. They are
Mara Rudman, of the George Soros-financed Center for American Progress;
Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton who is now building a Fatah army in Jordan which he
recently acknowledged will turn its American-financed guns on Israel within
a few short years if Israel refuses to establish a Jew-free Palestinian
state in Judea and Samaria; Fred Hoff, one of the greatest champions of a
US-Syrian rapprochement and of an Israeli surrender of the Golan Heights;
and David Hale, the architect of the current US policy of rebuilding the
Hizbullah-infested Lebanese army. Hale will be permanently stationed in
Jerusalem in a large office suite that will house Mitchell's operation.
Aside from overseeing
his deputies, Mitchell has also been charged with leading a new
administration program aimed at undermining Israel's ability to make
independent military and intelligence decisions. Back in 2008, when Obama's
National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones served as then secretary of state
Condoleezza Rice's special advisor on Israeli-Palestinian security issues,
he authored a report calling for the US to assess what Israel's "real"
security interests in Judea and Samaria are and to limit US support to
Israel to filling those necessarily minimal interests. Jones's report, which
rejected all Israeli claims in Judea and Samaria and underplayed the
strategic significance of Palestinian rejection of Israel's right to exist,
was viewed as deeply hostile towards Israel and the Olmert government
prevailed on the Bush administration to set it aside.
This is not the case
today however. Obama shares Jones's view that Israel's perception of its
security needs is exaggerated. As he made clear in his speeches last week at
Cairo and Buchenwald, Obama thinks that Israel suffers from a
Holocaust-induced paranoia that causes it to wrongly believe that Arabs and
Iranians wish to wipe it off the map. In Obama's view, Israel's fears can be
dealt with, and a Middle East peace can be wrought through a US takeover of
both Israel's security assessments and its military and intelligence
operations and policies. To this end, and in line with Jones's 2008 report,
according to last Friday's Yediot Ahronot, the administration is building an
apparatus designed to prevent Israel from exercising independent judgments
about its tactical and strategic challenges and deny it the ability to
secure its interests without US involvement and consent.
The apparatus
reportedly includes members of every US security, foreign policy and
intelligence body. These officers will be stationed in Israel and will
report to Mitchell who in turn will report to Jones and Obama. Each officer
will be assigned to coordinate with Israeli counterparts in mirror
organizations including the IDF, the Shin Beit, the Mossad, the police and
every other relevant Israeli body.
Since there is no
polite way for Israel to reject this effective US bid to subvert its
capacity to make independent decisions, the most urgent dilemma the
Netanyahu government must solve is how to handle Mitchell's new supreme
headquarters in Jerusalem. To address this issue, the government must be
clear about what it wishes to accomplish in its relations with Mitchell
specifically and the Obama administration generally.
As the Obama
administration's treatment of Israel to date shows clearly, the President
and his advisors have no intention of compromising their hardline positions
on Israel. The administration is building its supreme headquarters in
Jerusalem to enable Mitchell to act like a colonial governor and confront
the unruly Jewish natives — not to cut a deal with us.
For its part, Israel
has nothing to gain, and much to lose from an open and prolonged
confrontation with Washington. And so Netanyahu's goal in contending with
Mitchell must be twofold: He must seek to avoid an ugly fight with the White
House, and he must do so while yielding nothing of substance to the Mitchell
command post.
Today, Netanyahu
clearly hopes to achieve this goal by showing great respect for Mitchell. On
Tuesday he reportedly devoted a full four hours of his schedule to talks
with Mitchell and his aides.
While understandable,
Netanyahu's willingness to humor Mitchell is a recipe for disaster.
Netanyahu cannot allow Mitchell to tie him or his senior ministers down for
hours at a time in fruitless discussions about Obama's peace fantasies, or
which set of suicidal Israeli "gestures" might assuage the Obama
administration's hunger for a confrontation. Bluntly stated, Israel's Prime
Minister has better things to do with his time. Moreover, Netanyahu cannot
debase his office by subordinating his schedule to the whims of a mere
presidential envoy.
And so, as former US
ambassador to the UN John Bolton first suggested in January during his visit
to Israel, Netanyahu must elegantly remove himself from Mitchell's orbit.
To this end, in his
policy speech at Bar Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center on Sunday,
Netanyahu should announce that in the interests of fostering cooperation
with the US and advancing prospects for peace, he is appointing a Special
Prime Ministerial Envoy to Obama's Special Presidential Envoy Mitchell. This
envoy — and his purposely inflated staff — should be charged with handling
all contacts with Mitchell and his staff and reporting all of their
suggestions to Netanyahu for his consideration.
Netanyahu's special
envoy should be a senior persona whom he trusts implicitly. Prime candidates
for the position would be ambassador Dore Gold - who served as UN ambassador
during Netanyahu's first term as prime minister — and former minister Natan
Sharansky - who Netanyahu has nominated to head the Jewish Agency. Either
man would be more than capable of respectfully deflecting US pressure on the
Palestinian issue away from Netanyahu and so freeing the Prime Minister to
attend to the Iranian threat.
And that's the thing
of it. At the end of the day, Netanyahu has three main challenges that he
must meet if he is to successfully protect Israel in the coming years. He
must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He must secure Israel's
national and strategic interests in Judea and Samaria and sole Israeli
sovereignty in Jerusalem. And he must do what he can to avoid an open breach
with Washington.
By deploying Mitchell
to Jerusalem, Obama is trying to prevent Netanyahu from achieving any of
these aims. Only by neutralizing Mitchell will Netanyahu free his schedule
to contend with them.
http://jewishworldreview.com/0609/glick061209.php3