Throwing Israel Under The Bus

Israel has been tossed under a slew of buses over the years, right back to the decades preceding its creation, when the British Foreign Ministry filled as it was (and is) by Arabists repeatedly tossed the not-yet-state toward the onrushing "omni." This fine tradition was followed by the US State Department, which wanted ever so much not to be "present at the creation" of the new Zionist state over sixty years ago.

Most recently, at least in the eyes of the famously outspoken former mayor of New York City, Ed Koch, President Obama and "his team" have been making a maximum effort to toss Israel under the Arab powered Mideast Express. The Mayor has a point at least as far as appearances are concerned. And, it must be noted, in foreign relations all appearances are, de facto, declaratory policy.

This means simply that appearances are reality.

Obama's pressure campaign when considered in conjunction with his "outreach" efforts to the governments of the "Arab and Muslim world" gives the strong, almost irrefutable appearance of a strong tilt against Israel. When the cavalier treatment afforded Benjamin Netanyahu is added to the mix, the result substantiates the Koch Interpretation.

One result, perhaps the single most important one, of the Obama get-tough-with-Israel policy is to give Palestinian Authority chief Abbas perfect cover not to hold any substantial negotiations with Israel. Abbas must have fallen to his knees, banged his forehead on the mosque floor in thanksgiving to a most merciful and compassionate Allah for this divine favor. Now, Abbas and his cohorts would not have to take the heat as they did when former Israeli PM Olmert offered peace and land on terms surpassing the most Abbas had ever hoped for. (Recall that Abbas did not even deign to reply to the Olmert peace offer--not even to reject it.)

Since President Obama has done everything to convey that Israel must accept the Saudi Plan including retreat to the pre-Six Day War armistice line--which includes the Green Line in Jerusalem--and accept a Palestinian version of the law of return, it is now impossible for Abbas and the PA to accept any less. Intentionally or not President Obama has issued an unlimited license to the PA for equally unlimited intransigence.

This assures two outcomes: There will be no Mideast Peace unless it is imposed by outsiders such as the Quartet; Israel will be forced to live with one more utterly implacable neighbor dedicated officially to the destruction of "the Zionist entity."

This is a good operational definition of throwing Israel under the bus.

The reason adduced by Mayor Koch for the Obama policy is simple: Propitiate the Arab and Muslim states.

This is also the reason which was presented by the British Foreign Ministry for favoring the Arabs in the Thirties and Forties. It is also the motive for the position taken by Secretary of State Marshall, the State Department generally, and Secretary of Defense Forestal for their opposition to American recognition of Israel in 1949.

The Marshall calculation was straightforward. There were thirty million Arabs, many of whom sat on oil fields critical to the defense of Europe should the Soviet Union attack. Geopolitically, strategically, the position of Secretary Marshall was (and is) quite defensible. President Truman understood this but went with recognition as doing such was, bluntly, the right thing to do given the recently revealed off-the-scale-of-ready-comprehension genocide practiced by the Nazis.

Truman's successor, Dwight Eisenhower, saw the geopolitical dynamics in a way identical with Marshal. It was for this reason that Ike pursued a policy of complete evenhandedness. The US would not sell arms to Israel. When Israel conspired with England and France for the unprovoked invasion of Suez in 1956, Eisenhower moved quickly to end it and roll the invaders back. Throughout his administration the focus was on oil, more specifically its necessity for NATO to successfully resist a Soviet invasion. (In this context it is necessary to recall that the first expression of the "Domino Theory" saw the wave of states falling to the Communist orbit rolling from Vietnam to India and ending in the Persian Gulf states.)

The Eisenhower policy ended with JFK, who authorized the sale of weapons (HAWK anti-aircraft missile batteries) over the objections of both the State and Defense departments. Once this threshold had been passed, it was an easy matter to sell offensive systems (M-60 main battle tanks and A-6 ground attack aircraft) as was done by President Johnson. This action was taken over the objections of State and Defense and despite warnings from the JCS staff and CIA that Israel would mount an offensive war as soon as the equipment had been absorbed.

This prediction came true with the Six Day War. Israel plausibly argued that the war was defensive in nature albeit preemptive in execution. The role played by the US in the war including the use of American origin equipment, the relatively muted position taken by the US in its diplomacy, and the abject acceptance of the transparently false excuses offered by Israel for its attack upon the USNS Liberty, demonstrated to the Arab states generally that the Americans had become the sponsor of Israel.

There is a great deal of legitimacy for the Arab view in the wake of the Six Day War. For reasons more accurately assignable to the category "domestic politics" than to the one labeled "foreign policy," the US was unable to bring Israel to a less aggrandizing position in the heady days following the "splendid little war."

During the waning days of LBJ as well as those of his successor, Richard Nixon, the State Department as well as Defense, and, on occasion, CIA, all warned of the negative consequences brought by the US tilt to Israel. Short of levering Israel out of the occupied territories of Sinai, the West Bank, and Golan, there was nothing the US could do which would have ameliorated the negatives which clouded Uncle Sam's image and influence throughout the Arab and Muslim countries.

Henry Kissinger employed all of his considerable talents to repairing the damage to the US position in the Mideast, but these all foundered in the winds of the Yom Kippur war of 1973. The actions taken by the US both to limit the testicle reclaiming Egyptian penetration of Sinai and provide Israel with the means of effectively striking back spoke much louder in Arab ears than did the rhetoric of Kissinger.

That the US would stick by Israel was undoubted during all the years following Yom Kippur. The many twists, turns, talks would never impede the fundamental relationship between Israel and the US. The simple fact that the US had done the right thing in 1949 combined with the evermore effective stoking of American public opinion by Israel to assure the steady state of unfailing US support.

The very concept of "throwing Israel under the bus" would have been unthinkable outside of the bastions of liberal, multicultural elitism as little as a year ago. There had been some erosion of American support for the "embattled David" surrounded by legions of "Goliaths." The images of Israeli suppression of the First and Second Intifadas had been damaging as had been the recurrent appearances of Israeli obscurantism and duplicity in the endless round of peace talks. Regardless, the default position for most Americans, both hoi polloi and hoi oligoi, remained supportive of Israel.

Presidents Clinton and W. Bush had attempted to put pressure on Israel to be more accommodating, less absolutest in its bargaining posture. That this level of pressure worked in conjunction with Israeli domestic political opinion can be seen in the Olmert proposal, the one which was never acknowledged by Abbas.

There was no evident need to increase the pressure on Israel even with the shift to the Right shown in the most recent elections there. More to the point, there was nothing to be gained, and much to be lost by ramping up the muscle directed at Israel.

Importantly, the increased pressure has centered on the portion of the multifaceted peace challenge which is both least susceptible to pressure, Jerusalem, and in favor of the party least able to negotiate substantially, the PA. Had pressure been applied to Israel with the focus being its withdrawal from the Golan Heights, there are strong reasons to conclude the results would have been positive.

If the motivation of the current Obama pressure program is that of currying favor with the assorted Arab and Muslim states with a view toward gaining assistance in the diplomatic campaign against Iran and the very real war with Islamist based jihad, the administration has chosen the wrong playing field. Giving Jerusalem to the PA, forcing Israel back to the pre-1967 "borders," elevating Palestine to state status, each and all bode little potential return.

The recognition of Syria as the key player would have made more sense. Putting Syria in its proper role, gaining a settlement of the Golan question would have gone much, much further in the direction of isolating Iran, offsetting Arab fears, and gaining an important ally in the joint struggle against the jihadist threat.

The ultimate sorrow and pity of the present Obama policy is that it seeks to reverse Truman's having done the right thing fifty plus years ago while gaining no advantage for the US. It is a lose-lose proposition.

And, Mr Obama, no Nobel Peace Prize is worth that cost.