Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Israel: Strong Words Must Be Followed by Strong Action

Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu has been playing the Obama administration for almost eight years, repeatedly sticking his finger in their eye and getting away with it. In fact, it is a running joke that Netanyahu, either before or after high level US visits, defiantly announces new settlement plans, boasting that he knows how to control America.

Print Friendly


I was both understanding of and puzzled by the Obama administration’s reaction to Israel’s announcement of new settlement construction in occupied Palestinian lands.

It was just a few weeks ago that the White House signed a new 10-year agreement with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committing a total of $38 billion in military assistance to Israel. In announcing the deal, President Obama noted that this is the most significant support package ever offered to Israel, demonstrating his unparalleled commitment to that state’s security. Shortly thereafter, Obama, speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, cautioned Israel that it “cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land.”

And so it was like a slap in the face when, when Netanyahu announced that he was building new settlement units in colonies deep in the West Bank, along with ongoing plans to expand settlements in other sensitive areas of the occupied lands—in Arab areas of Jerusalem, in the heart of Hebron, and around Bethlehem. All of these are clear provocations and when seen in combination make clear Israel’s intention to maintain its control over the West Bank, making impossible the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Netanyahu’s the announcement came just two days before Obama was to travel to Israel to speak at the memorial service for Shimon Peres.

And so, I was not surprised when the reactions from the White House and the State Department were quite harsh. The White House spokesperson noted that every US administration, since 1967, has opposed settlements in the occupied lands and reaffirmed their view that expanding settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem only served to further frustrate a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The White House went further by accusing Netanyahu of violating his commitment to the US that he would refrain from any further settlement expansion noting, caustically that “l guess, when we’re talking about how good friends treat one another, that’s a concern, as well.”

For its part, the State Department spokesperson “strongly condemned [the Israeli] plan that would create a significant new settlement deep in the West Bank.” He referred to the expansion as being yet “another step toward cementing a one-state reality of perpetual occupation” and added that “Such moves will only draw condemnation from the international community…and further call into question Israel’s commitment to achieving a negotiated peace”. He went further, adding that the Administration was “deeply troubled” that Israel took this action so soon after the signing of the new massive military aid agreement.

While fully understanding that the administration is upset, I admit to also being puzzled. Netanyahu has been playing them for almost eight years, repeatedly sticking his finger in their eye and getting away with it. In fact, it is a running joke, that Netanyahu, either before or after high level US visits, will defiantly announce new settlement plans, boasting that he knows how to control America.

On three occasions, Netanyahu used invitations to address the US Congress in an effort to stymie the goals of the president—succeeding twice. In the one instance where he lost (on the Iran deal), he ended up being rewarded with the $38 billion arms agreement.

And so after almost eight years of frustrating the administration’s efforts at peace-making, of continued settlement expansion, of systematic violations of Palestinian rights, and of repeated episodes of near unrestrained gross violence, why should anyone have been surprised that Netanyahu would pocket the $38 billion and once again flaunt his commitments to the president? He acts with impunity, precisely because there has been no accountability for his behavior. The White House and State Department may cry foul, issuing strong statements. But Netanyahu knows that it will end there—with no price to be paid for bad behavior.

As long as the US allows this pattern to continue, the spoiled child will take advantage of the situation—taunting, acting out, and getting his way.

This administration, like those before it, will argue that their hands are tied—that Congress will undercut them or overrule them. But in the last three months of this administration, President Obama has an opportunity to set things right. He can, for example, restate the 1970’s State Department finding (which has never been overturned) that all settlement activity is illegal. He can allow the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution declaring the illegality of settlements and imposing international sanctions against Israel for its violations of international law. And he can refuse to block an Arab effort to refer the issue to the International Criminal Court.

Israel will throw a tantrum (as spoiled children are wont to do). And Israel’s lobby will, no doubt, spring into action demanding that Congress repudiate the administration’s effort. But the matter will be out of their hands and in the court of international community. A strong signal will be sent to Israel, that they cannot continue their oppression of Palestinians and their creeping annexation of the occupied territories. And it will empower and embolden Israeli and Palestinian peace forces.

Finally, such a demonstration of decisiveness will help to salvage President Obama’s legacy in the Middle East. It will provide him with the opportunity to be remembered as the president who provided unprecedented security assistance for Israel, while at the same time putting his foot down and making that state’s rogue leadership face the international consequences for their self-destructive behavior.

James J. Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.