Right Web

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

Israel: Strong Words Must Be Followed by Strong Action

Lobelog

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

Zalmay Khalilzad is Donald Trump’s special representative to the Afghan peace process, having previously served as ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq under George W. Bush.


Robert Joseph played a key role in manipulating U.S. intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq and today is a lobbyist for the MEK.


Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Elliott Abrams, the Trump administration’s special envoy to Venezuela, is a neoconservative with a long record of hawkish positions and actions, including lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair.


Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump second secretary of state, has driven a hawkish foreign policy in Iran and Latin America.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Nikki Haley, Donald Trump’s first U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and is widely considered to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

François Nicoullaud, the former French ambassador to Iran, discusses the ups and downs of Iran-France relations and the new US sanctions.


Effective alliances require that powerful states shoulder a far larger share of the alliance maintenance costs than other states, a premise that Donald Trump rejects.


The new imbroglio over the INF treaty does not mean a revival of the old Cold War practice of nuclear deterrence. However, it does reveal the inability of the West and Russia to find a way to deal with the latter’s inevitable return to the ranks of major powers, a need that was obvious even at the time the USSR collapsed.


As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump appeared to recognize the obvious problem of the revolving door. But as the appointment of Patrick Shanahan, who spent 30 years at Boeing, as the Trump administration’s acting secretary of defense reveals, little has changed. America is indeed great again, if you happen to be one of those lucky enough to be moving back and forth between plum jobs in the Pentagon and the weapons industry.


Domestic troubles, declining popularity, and a decidedly hawkish anti-Iran foreign policy team may combine to make the perfect storm that pushes Donald Trump to pull the United States into a new war in the Middle East.


The same calculus that brought Iran and world powers to make a deal and has led remaining JCPOA signatories to preserve it without the U.S. still holds: the alternatives to this agreement – a race between sanctions and centrifuges that could culminate in Iran obtaining the bomb or being bombed – would be much worse.


With Bolton and Pompeo by his side and Mattis departed, Trump may well go with his gut and attack Iran militarily. He’ll be encouraged in this delusion by Israel and Saudi Arabia. He’ll of course be looking for some way to distract the media and the American public. And he won’t care about the consequences.


RightWeb
share