OBAMA ADMINISTRATION REACHES NADIR AS PANETTA
URGES ISRAEL TO “GET TO THE DAMNED TABLE” WITH PA
Frederick Krantz
The Arab world is in turmoil, as the high promise of the “Arab spring” is everywhere descending—from Tunisia to Egypt to Yemen to (soon) Syria—into the triumph of the Islamists and Muslim Brothers. And meanwhile Abbas and the PA, rejecting negotiations with Israel and recognition of it as a Jewish state, continue their unilateral drive for UN recognition and seek to unite with Gaza’s overtly terrorist and rejectionist Hamas rulers.
Yet precisely at this moment of both great clarity and great peril for Israel, one further radicalized by Iran’s looming achievement of a nuclear weapon, the new American Secretary of Defense, Leon E. Panetta, angrily advises threatened Israel, America’s only reliable ally in the Middle East: “Get to the damn table!”
This is an expression of utter and final Administration bankruptcy, the absolute nadir of Obama’s failed Middle East foreign policy. Obama has—repeatedly and willfully ignoring all the evident realities—consistently disregarded Israel’s situation and instead played to the Muslim regimes and public. This failure runs from the outright lies of Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech to the precipitate abandonment of longtime ally Hosni Mubarak, from the failed efforts to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs to the (related) ignoring and abandonment of the Iranian people’s protest movement, and from the repeated attempts to appease the Syrian dictator to America’s muted response as he murders his own protesting citizens.
And now—in the face of the sustained refusal of Abbas to sit down with Israel, his vicious rejection of Israel’s historical claims in his specious UN speech, his attempt to reunite with a movement even Obama’s own government considers terrorist—what is America’s advice? A repetition of the old, stale, failed “two states living side by side in peace” mantra (rejected by Abbas), an assertion of Israel’s growing regional “isolation” clearly (and wrongly) implying it is Israel’s fault, and an angry injunction to sit down with those whose refusal of negotiations expresses a rejection of Israel’s very legitimacy.
If the U.S. had a parliamentary system, the Republicans would, pointing to his long record of Middle East incompetence and failure, no doubt be moving a non-confidence vote in President Obama, his Secretaries of State and Defense, and his government. As it is, Senate and House Foreign Affairs committees should demand that Panetta (and Hilary Clinton) appear at hearings on Obama’s failed Middle East policy, and the next Republican Presidential candidates’ debate should focus on this latest stunning example of Administrative incompetence and/or hostility.
Panetta’s deplorable remarks also indicate that it is high time that Jewish organizations go into high gear to point out that Israel faces not only an aggressive and untrustworthy Palestinian non-partner in the so-called “peace process”, and not only a rapidly deteriorating regional framework (cf. Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and Iran), but also an objectively unfriendly U.S. Administration. Panetta and his friends seem unable, or unwilling, to grasp that, post-Mubarak, the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt—the key cornerstone since 1979 of Middle East stability—is gravely imperiled, and that, given Teheran’s functionally unimpeded nuclear drive, Israel’s very existence is threatened.
This politically tin-eared, morally blind, and politically passive (if not paralyzed) Administration, ideologically frozen into political and diplomatic immobility, cannot, and will not, change. The only remedy now for the deep harm, and great danger, its anti-Israel Middle East policy has created is to do everything possible to make sure that a Republican President and Administration occupies the White House after November, 2012.
(Prof. Krantz is Director of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research,
and editor of CIJR’s Daily Isranet Briefing, ISRAFAX journal, and Blog.)
SCARY US VIEWS
Editorial
Jerusalem Post, December 5, 2011
In recent days, there has been a truly frightening articulation of the US administration’s perception of Israel vis-à-vis the Muslim world. [Last] Friday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta essentially blamed Israel for its own “increasing isolation,” urging the Jewish state to reach out to its neighbors.
He suggested that Israel make diplomatic inroads with the Muslim Brotherhood’s Egypt, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s increasingly Islamist and anti-Israel Turkey, and vulnerable Jordan, a country whose leadership—for the sake of self-preservation—has been making concessions to its own Muslim Brotherhood. And when asked at the end of his speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington what operative steps Israel could make to advance negotiations with the Palestinians, Panetta said: “Just get to the damn table.”
In other words, the clearly exasperated Panetta believes that if only stubborn Israel would make more concessions to the Palestinians, regional animosity toward Israel would miraculously evaporate after decades of incitement.
Just two days before Panetta made his disturbing comments, US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman, the son of a Polish Holocaust survivor, basically blamed Israel for Muslim anti-Semitism in Europe.…
First, [Gutman] noted the “significant anger” and “yes, perhaps hatred and indeed sometimes an all too growing intimidation and violence directed at Jews generally as a result of the continuing tensions between Israel and the Palestinian territories and other Arab neighbors in the Middle East.” But instead of denouncing Muslims who attack European Jews because Israel stubbornly insists on defending itself…Gutman attempted to understand these outbursts of violence as a legitimate reaction and, therefore, fundamentally different from “traditional” forms of anti-Semitism.
Though one man was talking about Muslim perceptions in Europe and the other focused on Muslim political leadership in the region, both Panetta and Gutman had one thing in common: a maddening insistence on mixing up cause and effect.
No, Mr. Panetta, Israel’s isolation has not deepened as a result of anything that it has done (besides existing). In Turkey, in the Gaza Strip, in Tunisia and now in Egypt, governments have been voted into power—in democratic elections—that have, or soon will, pursue foreign policies exceedingly antagonistic toward the Jewish state. After all, what interest would any Arab country in the region have in strengthening ties with Israel at a time when its citizens, given the chance to choose, are expressing a distinct preference for a particularly fundamentalist, illiberal and anti-Western—not to mention anti-Israel and anti-Semitic—strain of Islamic leadership?
What Panetta should have said—and didn’t—was that in light of the increasing hostility directed toward Israel by an increasing number of Muslim states in the region, the US reaffirms its commitment to Israel’s security. And Mr. Gutman, the hundreds of attacks on innocent European Jews perpetrated by Muslims purportedly in response to Israel’s settlement policy in east Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria or in response to its attempts to defend itself through military means are no less irrational than any other type of anti-Semitism.
Just as Jews such as Gutman’s father were not responsible for the sort of anti-Semitism directed at them during the Holocaust, so, too, is it unfair to point to Israeli policies as triggering Muslim violence against European Jews.…
The sorts of views held by Gutman and Panetta are, unfortunately, not uncommon. But it is more than just unfortunate when these views are held by men who have a critical influence on US foreign policy. It is downright scary, especially in light of Israel’s growing need for American support as radical changes sweep the region.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PANETTA SHOWS
HOW THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
IS SELLING OUT ISRAEL…AND US INTERESTS
Barry Rubin
Pajamas Media, December 3, 2011
…In a major address on U.S. Middle East policy to the Brookings Institution U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta gave us a clear picture of the Obama administration’s view of the region.… We now know the following regarding Obama’s policy: It is dangerously and absurdly wrong. This administration totally and completely, dangerously and disastrously for U.S. interests misunderstands the Middle East.…
In his speech, Panetta bashed Israel based on a ridiculously false premise. Here it is: “I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view.… The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table, to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.”
First, there is a peculiar phrase that I have not seen used even once to describe the Middle East events of 2011, “Arab Awakening” instead of “Arab Spring.” This apparently comes from the title of a new book about these events. But what is the origin of this phrase? The Arab Awakening was the famous book written by George Antonius advocating Arab nationalism and opposition to Zionism in 1938. The Arab Awakening began a half-century pan-Arab struggle against Israel’s creation and existence. Might this not give us a hint of what the new “Arab Awakening” is going to do?… Within two years of Antonius’s book, the form the Arab Awakening took was an alliance with Nazi Germany. One of the main allies of Berlin was the Muslim Brotherhood, now coming into power in Tunisia and Egypt.
Interesting parallels. But there are three other major questions raised in Panetta’s statement.
First, does the current “Arab Awakening” imperil Israel? Yes, of course it does: By changing a reasonably friendly Egyptian government into a totally hostile Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi dominated political system closely allied with Hamas, the Gaza Strip’s ruler, and by helping establish Islamist regimes in Tunisia and Libya allied with this Muslim Brotherhood International. The changes create a four-member alliance intent on wiping Israel off the map. Add to that Islamist domination of Lebanon by Hizballah, an Islamist regime in Turkey, and the continuing threat from Iran and you’ve got quite a regional situation.
Second, and more interestingly, why is the above true? The answer is as follows:
–Democracy in theory is admirable but when you have masses imbued with very radical views, strong Islamist movements, and weak moderate ones, the election winners will be extremely radical Islamists. By winning massive victories, facing a weak (even sympathetic) United States, and seeing even more extreme forces becoming so popular (the Salafists in Egypt), the Islamists are emboldened to be even more radical in their behavior. Who’s going to stop them? We are thus not facing a springtime of democracy but a springtime of extremism.
–The Islamists don’t want peace with Israel on any terms. They want its destruction. They will not be dissuaded by a peace agreement. They will do anything possible—starting with demagoguery and ending with terrorism or even war—to block such a diplomatic solution. How can Israeli action reconcile those who don’t want peace?
–Not only is the United States not opposing this development; it is supporting it. In other words, U.S. policy is intensifying the threat to Israel, not helping Israel.
Third, why are there no negotiations? As the history of the issue since January 2009 shows, it is the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to negotiate with Israel. If Panetta and the Obama administration were either wise or honest they would acknowledge this fact. Instead, they blame Israel.… Consider Panetta’s statement: “I believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. And unfortunately, over the past year, we’ve seen Israel’s isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow.”
But why has it grown? Because of the advance of Islamist radical regimes and movements which are not tolerant of Israel’s security needs or in fact of Israel’s existence.… [Yet] Panetta’s suggestion…is that Israel should mend relations with such “traditional security partners.” Specifically, he stated, “Israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability—countries like Turkey and Egypt, as well as Jordan.”
That statement is false. Israel can’t reach out and mend fences with Turkey and Egypt because they do not share an interest in regional stability.… They are countries that want revolutionary change in the Middle East. And this claim takes on special irony since Israel must now not just mend the fence but build an entirely new fence to protect itself from cross-border attacks from Egypt. [Also], Turkey today is not the Turkey of the past. Israel had good relations with Turkey when it was governed by center-right or social democratic parties. Today Turkey is governed by Islamists who hate Israel. Doesn’t Panetta understand the difference? No! Now that’s scary.
Here’s the truth: Under the Obama administration, the Islamist regime in Turkey has replaced Israel as America’s number-one Middle East friend and advisor. And this is a government about which a half-dozen years ago Israel’s ambassador told an American counterpart (as we see on Wikileaks) that this regime hates Israel and hates Jews. That message is in a State Department cable.…
There is one more shockingly absurd pieces of advice Panetta has for Israel. “This is not impossible [for Israel to try to mend fences]. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are. And that is exactly why Israel should pursue them.…” This is precisely the same advice given regarding the 1990s’ peace process, the freeze of construction on settlements, and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. And every time the world doesn’t see. After the risk is taken (and Israel’s security suffers), and the concessions are made (and Israelis die), the world is even more critical of Israel and repeats, as Panetta does, that Israel has done nothing for peace.
These are harsh words about the Obama administration and for those who don’t understand the current situation in the Middle East they will no doubt seem partisan, extreme, and alarmist. This is the worst tragedy of all: sadly and regrettably they are quite true.
AN ALLY NO MORE
Caroline B. Glick
Jerusalem Post, December 5, 2011
With vote tallies in for Egypt’s first round of parliamentary elections in it is abundantly clear that Egypt is on the fast track to becoming a totalitarian Islamic state. The first round of voting took place in Egypt’s most liberal, cosmopolitan cities. And still the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists received more than 60 percent of the vote. Run-off elections for 52 seats will by all estimates increase their representation. And then in the months to come, Egyptian voters in the far more Islamist Nile Delta and Sinai will undoubtedly provide the forces of jihadist Islam with an even greater margin of victory.
Until the US-supported overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt served as the anchor of the US alliance system in the Arab world. The Egyptian military is US-armed, US-trained and US-financed. The Suez Canal is among the most vital waterways in the world for the US Navy and the global economy. Due to Mubarak’s commitment to stemming the tide of jihadist forces that threatened his regime, under his rule Egypt served as a major counter-terror hub in the US-led war against international jihad.
Given Egypt’s singular importance to US strategic interests in the Arab world, the Obama administration’s response to the calamitous election results has been shocking. Rather than sound the alarm bells, US President Barack Obama has celebrated the results as a victory for “democracy.” Rather than warn Egypt that it will face severe consequences if it completes its Islamist transformation, the Obama administration has turned its guns on the first country that will pay a price for Egypt’s Islamic revolution: Israel.
Speaking at the annual policy conclave in Washington sponsored by the leftist Brookings Institute’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hammered Israel, the only real ally the US has left in the Middle East after Mubarak’s fall. Clinton felt it necessary—in the name of democracy—to embrace the positions of Israel’s radical Left against the majority of Israelis.
The same Secretary of State that has heralded negotiations with the violent, fanatical misogynists of the Taliban; who has extolled Saudi Arabia where women are given ten lashes for driving, and whose State Department trained female-hating Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the lead-up to the current elections in Egypt accused Israel of repressing women’s rights. The only state in the region where women are given full rights and legal protections became the focus of Clinton’s righteous feminist wrath.
In the IDF, as in the rest of the country, religious coercion is forbidden. Jewish law prohibits men from listening to women’s voices in song. And recently, when a group of religious soldiers were presented with an IDF band that featured female vocalists, keeping faith with their Orthodox observance, they walked out of the auditorium. The vocalists were not barred from singing. They were not mistreated. They were simply not listened to.
Yet as far as Clinton is concerned, this is proof that women in Israel are under attack.… But Clinton didn’t end her diatribe with the IDF’s supposed war against women. She continued her onslaught by proclaiming that Israel is taking a knife to democracy by permitting its legislators to legislate laws that she doesn’t like. The legislative initiatives that provoked the ire of the US Secretary of State are the bills now under discussion which seek to curtail the ability to foreign governments to subvert Israel’s elected government by funding non-representative, anti-Israel political NGOs like B’Tselem and Peace Now.
In attacking Israel in the way she did, Clinton showed that she holds Israel to a unique standard of behavior. Whereas fellow Western democracies are within their rights when they undertake initiatives like banning Islamic headdresses from the public square, Israel is a criminal state for affording Jewish soldiers freedom of religion. Whereas the Taliban, who enslave women and girls in the most unspeakable fashion are worthy interlocutors, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which supports universal female genital mutilation is moderate, Israel is an enemy of democracy for seeking to preserve the government’s ability to adopt policies that advance the country’s interests.…
Clinton’s assault on Israeli democracy and society came a day after Panetta attacked Israel’s handling of its strategic challenges. Whereas Clinton attacked Israel’s moral fiber, Panetta judged Israel responsible for every negative development in the regional landscape.…
Panetta demanded that Israel make renewed gestures as well to appease the Egyptians, Turks and Jordanians. He failed to notice that it was Turkey’s Islamist government, not Israel, that took a knife to the Turkish-Israeli strategic alliance. As for Egypt, rather than recognize the strategic implications for the US and Israel alike of Egypt’s transformation into an Islamic state, the US Defense Secretary demanded that Israel ingratiate itself with Egypt’s military junta. Thanks in large part to the Obama administration, that junta is now completely beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood. As for Jordan, again thanks to the US’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its aligned groups in Libya and Tunisia, the Hashemite regime is seeking to cut a deal with the Jordanian branch of the movement in a bid to save itself from Mubarak’s fate. Under these circumstances, there is no gesture that Israel can make to its neighbor to the east that would empower King Abdullah to extol the virtues of peace with the Jewish state.
Then there is Iran, and its nuclear weapons program. Panetta argued that an Israeli military strike against Iran would lead to regional war. But he failed to mention that a nuclear armed Iran will lead to nuclear proliferation in the Arab world and exponentially increase the prospect of a global nuclear war. Rather than face the dangers head on, Panetta’s message was that the Obama administration would rather accept a nuclear-armed Iran than support an Israeli military strike on Iran to prevent the mullocracy from becoming a nuclear-armed state.…
[Such positions are] certainly of a piece with classical anti-Semitic behavior. There is little qualitative difference between accusing Israeli society of destroying democracy for seeking to defend itself against foreign political subversion, and accusing Jews of destroying morality for failing to embrace foreign religious faiths. So too, there is little qualitative difference between blaming Israel for its isolation in the face of the Islamist takeover of the Arab world, and blaming the Jews for the rise of anti-Semites to power in places like Russia, Germany and Norway.
In truth, from Israel’s perspective, it really doesn’t make a difference whether these statements and the intellectual climate they represent stem from ideological myopia or from hatred of Jews. The end result is the same in either case: Under President Obama, the US government has become hostile to Israel’s national rights and strategic imperatives. Under Obama, the US is no longer Israel’s ally.
