Right Web

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

Obama: Surrendered Wife?

For some people, there’s nothing President Obama can do to prove his love for Israel.

Print Friendly

For some people, there’s nothing President Obama can do to prove his love for Israel. He could pull a Sammy Davis, Jr. and convert to Judaism. He could give Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a big kiss on the lips. He could personally expel Palestinians from East Jerusalem. And still Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin would kvetch. "Yes, but what have you done for us today?" the ultra-Zionist would say. "Did you call this morning? Where are the fresh flowers? What, you don’t love Israel anymore?"

In his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday, President Obama did practically everything he could to prove his love. "Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority," the president said. "It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels.  It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. It's why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels."

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. We’re cutting our budgets here at home in order to send advanced military weaponry to a country that built a secret nuclear program, has continued to expand settlements in Palestinian land in violation of international law and common decency, and, under the leadership of the ever-intransigent Netanyahu, has refused to negotiate in good faith a deal with the Palestinian authorities. This is, in other words, a rogue state. We should be suspending military cooperation with this country, not rewarding it, at least until it mends its ways. We should be pushing for a region-wide nuclear weapons-free zone, as Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) contributor Kevin Martin argues in Zoning Out Nukes in the Middle East, and not treating Israel's nuclear status as an immutable fact.

Given the resolutely pro-Israel policies of the current administration, it’s no surprise that the AIPAC audience enthusiastically embraced the president’s speech. According to the White House transcript, the audience applauded about 50 times. In a speech that contained only around 150 sentences, that qualifies as a lovefest.

You would think that the AIPAC seal of approval would be enough. But no: Jennifer Rubin reserved her affection for the real Israel supporter at AIPAC — Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD): "Hoyer was the un-Obama — clear, unequivocally supportive of Israel and entirely within the mainstream, bipartisan pro-Israel tradition." Obama was, contra Rubin, clear and unequivocal. But he did something that Rubin did not like. He displayed the slightest hint of gumption by challenging not Israel but Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the other right-wing yahoos in his administration.

In his Middle East speech last week and then again at AIPAC, Obama said that any deal should involve “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” In other words, any deal to establish a Palestinian state — the "two-state solution" — must turn the clock back before the Six-Day War in 1967 when Israel seized control of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, among other territories. The "swap" part is an acknowledgement that Israeli settlers have changed the "facts on the ground" in the West Bank so that Palestinians should be compensated with different territory in exchange.

This is hardly a new position: The 1967-plus-swaps deal was at the heart of Bill Clinton's efforts in 2000. Previous Israeli administrations have accepted this approach. It is an uncontroversial approach among many Israelis. "The new world envisioned by Obama has no place for endless military occupation, for scenes like Operation Cast Lead, for shooting at protesters and for checkpoints," writes Gideon Levy in Haaretz. "There is no agreement without a Palestinian state, and there is no Palestinian state without the 1967 borders."

Netanyahu, however, believes otherwise. When they appeared together at a press conference at the White House on Friday, the Israeli prime minister dismissed Obama's plan as "peace based on illusions." Basically, Netanyahu has been treating the U.S. president like a surrendered wife. According to the surrendered wife doctrine, the wife relinquishes all control — and illusions of control — over her husband's life. Obama's temerity was the functional equivalent of a wife saying to her husband "I love you, but could you please take out the garbage once in a while?" Netanyahu, the domineering husband, blows up when he hears a "but."

"Unfortunately, despite Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas agreeing to such reciprocal territorial swaps — even though it would leave the Palestinian state with a bare 22 percent of Palestine — Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has refused to consider trading any land within Israel while simultaneously insisting on annexing large swathes of occupied Palestinian territory," writes FPIF senior analyst Stephen Zunes in Obama's Mideast Speech. "How such 'mutually agreed-upon' swaps will take place without the United States exerting enormous leverage — such as withholding some of the annual $3 billion in unconditional aid provided annually, which Obama has already ruled out — is hard to imagine."

One of the interesting words in Obama's AIPAC speech was "contiguous," as in the "Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state." Right now, obviously, the West Bank and Gaza are not territorially contiguous. In 2000, Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat at Camp David a large portion of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and a strip of connecting land. The problem was – and still is – that Israel has used walls and checkpoints to divide the West Bank into all manner of non-contiguous areas. At some point, if negotiations actually happen, the U.S. president should clarify that contiguous applies between as well within the occupied territories.

Before that point, of course, Obama has to abandon the surrendered wife role and show a bit more tough love. As FPIF senior analyst Ian Williams writes at our Focal Points blog, the president "should stop equivocating and come out plainly with a declaration that if Netanyahu continues to refuse to come to terms with reality in the region, then he cannot take a U.S. veto in the Security Council against Palestinian membership for granted nor even a nay vote in the General Assembly against a declaration of statehood."

In other words, the United States has some real leverage over Israel. And the Arab Spring is altering the political geography of the region. Netanyahu had better wake up and smell the democracy. "Israel must avoid its typical government paralysis and act quickly to advance its position in the emerging, more democratic Middle East," writes FPIF contributor Benjamin Tua in Winners and Losers in the New Middle East. "Israel remains militarily strong, but its ties with its main supporters are fraying. Time is not on its side. Israel must act posthaste to align its actions with its rhetoric."

The Obama administration is still in surrendered wife mode. It's time to make clear to Netanyahu that if he doesn't change his ways, he'll be waking up in an empty bed.

John Feffer edits Foreign Policy in Focus and is a contributor to Right Web.

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.