If you hear President Obama speak about the “unbreakable bonds”
between the United States and Israel then chances are he has
probably just said or done something to fritter away at those
bonds.
We heard this when he hosted Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu last July at the White House after the row he
started on
settlements in East Jerusalem. Of course, we heard it again last
Sunday during his
speech in Washington before the American-Israeli Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) following his declaration days earlier that any
peace between Israeli and the Palestinians would be based on 1967
borders prior to the Six Day War. Somehow I don’t think it will be
the last time those words will traverse his lips during the course
of his presidency. In which case, we can look forward to more
trouble between the Obama Administration and Israel.
Yet one must ask why President Obama goes out of his way
to cause so much trouble with our staunchest ally and the most
viable democracy in the Middle East? Well, because Obama believes
he can get away with it. After all, if there is anything his
left-wing base despises more than this country and its traditions,
it is Israel. As for alienating Jewish voters let us not forget
that Obama garnered 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008 despite his
association with anti-Israel figures like the Reverend Jeremiah
Wright, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. For many Jews in this
country, Israel and its survival is either not important to them
and or in some instances the mere mention of the Jewish state
provokes outright hostility. Quite frankly President Obama could
appear in full Nazi regalia, sporting a toothbrush mustache with
his arm extended shouting, “Sieg Heil!” and still get a majority of
the Jewish vote in this country.
Now some of you might think such a sentiment unduly harsh.
But if one cares about Israel and its fate one might want to pay
attention not only to President Obama’s attitude towards the Jewish
State but to the demands he makes of it. With this in mind let us
give further scrutiny to his remarks to AIPAC. On one hand,
President Obama states, “No country can be expected to negotiate
with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction.” But in the
very next paragraph he says, “no matter how hard it may be to start
meaningful negotiations under current circumstances, we must
acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option.” So, in other
words, while Israel shouldn’t expect to negotiate with a terrorist
organization, failure to negotiate with a terrorist organization is
not an option. The incoherence of President Obama’s approach to
peace in the Middle East is mind-boggling.
Allow me to provide one more example. While Obama
acknowledged “that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the
conflict,” he could not restrain himself from saying that
negotiations had to proceed on the basis of the 1967 borders
“because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two
decades, or another three decades to achieve peace.” So let me get
this straight. Peace cannot be imposed from without but must be
because we cannot wait.
But why can’t we wait another thirty years for peace in
the Middle East? Suppose that by 2041 Palestinian schools stopped
teaching their children to hate Jews. Suppose that by 2041 the
Palestinian Authority were to stop naming their streets and soccer
fields after suicide bombers. Suppose that by 2041 Palestinians
were to stop dancing in the streets and handing out candy to their
children when Jewish babies were murdered. Suppose that in thirty
years time the Palestinians produced a leadership that was not only
willing to live side by side with Israel but was able to accept it
as a Jewish state. Wouldn’t it be better for Israel to negotiate
under those conditions? Wouldn’t it be worth the wait?
Well, President Obama can’t wait. The President after all
has his legacy to think about. While the death of Osama bin Laden
is a big feather in his cap, it isn’t enough. He must earn his
Nobel Peace Prize and become the Peace President. This means a new
Middle East peace agreement now even if it is one in which in
Israel is asked to surrender more land for promises the
Palestinians have no intention of keeping. In which case so much
for those unbreakable bonds.
