Bibi: Today in Washington, Remind Our President of These Hard Truths

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on his way to the White House today to meet with President Obama, Israel faces a potentially existential threat from Iran, whose leadership has repeatedly stated its intention to destroy the Jewish state.

President Obama told Newsweek magazine last week: "I've been very clear that I don't take any options off the table with respect to Iran. I don't take options off the table when it comes to U.S. security, period. What I have said is that we want to offer Iran an opportunity to align itself with international norms and international rules. I think, ultimately, that will be better for the Iranian people."

When asked if he expects U.S. ally Israel to refrain from taking military action in the face of existential threat, he said:

No, look, I understand very clearly that Israel considers Iran an existential threat, and given some of the statements that have been made by President Ahmadinejad, you can understand why. So their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are.

To me, the above sounds very reasonable and understanding of Israel's difficult position. While like many security-minded Americans who favor strong alliance with Israel, I have been concerned that President Obama might waver in his commitment to supporting this ally's right to self-defense (and incidentally, front line defense of the free world from Islamist extremism), I see reason to be cautiously optimistic that, as with his positions on U.S. security, President Obama will prove better than his critics' worst fears. In the meantime, let us support him in his efforts to employ diplomacy and sanctions, and hope they work to contain Iran. Israel's supporters do not prefer war.

That said, given the likelihood that, in exchange for U.S. support, the Obama administration may press Israel to pursue a peace process that would lead to creation of a Palestinian state in the short term, now is a good time to review what Israel's recent concessions in the name of peace have produced:

1) The Gaza withdrawal: in August, 2005, Israel evacuated Gaza, and instead of moderation, extremism in Gaza spread like a virus. Al Qaeda operatives infiltrated Gaza from Egypt, Sudan and Yemen, weapons and cash poured in, and Hamas undertook a years-long campaign of rocket terrorism aimed at civilians in Israel's southern towns.

2) The Lebanon withdrawal: Israel withdrew in May, 2000 from Lebanon, only to see Hezbollah, the terror network that struck the U.S. barracks in 1983, killing 241 Marines, further ensconce itself there as what the Lebanese President Lahoud termed a "legitimate political party." Hezbollah kidnapped three Israeli soldiers and an Israeli businessman in October 2000, and in 2002 began launching Katyusha missiles into northern Israeli towns, and attacking troops in northern Israel. In 2004, Israel freed over 400 live Arab prisoners in exchange for the businessman and the dead bodies of the soldiers kidnapped in 2000. In July 2006, Hezbollah terrorists infiltrated Israel's northern border, killing three Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two more. Israel launched the second Lebanon War to rescue the soldiers, whose dismembered bodies were eventually returned to Israel in exchange for four live Hezbollah militants, the bodies of 200 more, and convicted PLO child murderer Samir Kuntar.

3) The Oslo Peace Accords: for seven years, Israel returned to the negotiating table, conceding land in the face of continued terrorism. While Israeli leaders prepared their people for peace, Yasir Arafat preached war to his people in Arabic. The process culminated in Arafat's rejection, in 2000, of a Palestinian state that would have consisted of 95 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem. After rejecting the offer, Arafat and the Palestinians resumed of the intifadah, targeting Israelis in suicide bombings.

Senator John Kerry recently put it succinctly: "Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, only to face Hezbollah; Israel withdrew from Gaza, only to face Hamas rockets. Israel is not about to let the same thing happen in the West Bank, nor should they."

The recent history of U.S. peacemaking efforts in the region is rife with hubris: for decades, U.S. presidents have flattered themselves into thinking that they could impose a solution in the region without addressing the core problem: the leadership of Arab countries surrounding Israel poisons its people via propaganda and funds terrorism to keep the essential, destructive dynamic in play. Terror networks, some operating semi-autonomously, find haven in these countries to conduct their attacks. The idea of a Palestinian state is a worthy dream. But unless and until Arab leadership evolves, any Palestinian state created in the near term will almost certainly be a terror state. Let us hope President Obama is realistic enough to grasp this unfortunate reality.

Comments

[DC]

"U.S. presidents have flattered themselves into thinking that they could impose a solution in the region without addressing the core problem: the leadership of Arab countries."

A stunning statement!

In one swipe the entire ME problem and ongoing conflict with Israel is placed on the failed leadership of various neighboring countries. To you, and to some (or perhaps many) a failed leadership. So Sadat was a failure?

It is always the fault of others!

Talk about projection. Talk about blaming only others for conflict with Israel. Talk about the lack of introspection.

Why is such a irrational, superficial and even delusional comment here?

[Justtellthetruth]

You support the settlements. Just say it. Or, in any case, you are perfectly happy to see them continue to expand and inspire terror against Israel, the US and throughout Europe.

If not, then speak out to remove these abominations FIRST, so that peace can be achieved and so that people like Iran's president are not given undue credibility when they point to the settlements and use their inherent and unequivocal injustice as a political marketing tool.

[jamilk99]

Point 3) If Israel was truly interested in peace, why did it continue building new settlements after the Oslo peace accords? Arafat was offered 95% of the West Bank that was not contiguous, meaning that to get from one West Bank town to the next, Palestinians would still have to go through Israeli checkpoints. The settlements would remain and the Palestinians would also have to somehow get around all of the Jewish-only roads that connect those settlements. The map of the West Bank was to look like a slice of swiss cheese with all of the holes representing illegal Jewish-only settlements that were remain in the territory.

[jamilk99]

Point 2) Hezbollah wasn't formed until 1985 so how are they responsible for the attack on the marine barracks in 1983? Even if they were, US marines had no business being in their country pretending to be peacekeepers while helping our ally Israel in its invasion. Last I checked, an attack against a military target, such as marine barracks, isn't a terrorist attack. Also, Israel still hasn't withdrawn completely from Lebanon - it still occupies the Shebaa farms. Israel had their prisoners so they kidnapped some Israeli soldiers and obtained a favorable exchange. They must have good negotiating skills.

[jamilk99]

Point 1) The rockets from Gaza didn't even kill more than a handful of Israeli civilians. You ignore the fact that many of the refugees in Gaza came from the towns they were firing rockets at. Ashkelon used to be the Palestinian town of Al-Majdal. Sderot used to be the Palestinian town of Najd. Hamas entered into a ceasefire with Israel on June 18th. Hamas never violated the truce. Other groups fired rockets but these were few and far between, neither killing nor injuring even a single person. Most were fired by groups like Fatah which had a direct interest in providing Israel with an excuse to come in and topple Hamas so they could replace them. On Nov. 4th, when we were busy watching election results, Israel killed 6 Hamas members in an incursion to Gaza and that's when Hamas resumed firing rockets. Israel invades Gaza and kills over 1400 Palestinians in 3 weeks. Israel may no longer occupy Gaza but it still controls all of the borders, the airspace, etc. No one or anything is allowed in and out of there so what difference does it make if the troops withdrew to the borders in order to starve the population?

[breakfast]

Either you believe that European Jews had and have the right to conquer and colonize parts of the Middle East and set up an exclusively Jewish nation at the expense of the indigenous people of that region, or you don't. Either you believe that the people being displaced and conquered, however long and drawn out that process may be, have no right to resist, or you don't.

My reading of history tells me that the people who have lived on that land for centuries have more claim to it than those who are now called Israelis ever had, regardless of what the United Nations and the European powers "mandated."

You can call it terrorism till you are blue in the face, and certainly terrorist type elements are exploiting the situation, but I can't bring myself to condemn the Palestinian people who are resisting Israeli aggression and territorial expansion.

It is up to the Israelis to make peace with the people of the lands they have stolen, not the other way around. The Palestinians have no obligation to acquiesce.

[marylinpitz]

MS. R: I am amazed at the gumption you must rely upon to write with clarity and open-mindedness in the face of such ugly anti-semitism, which readers such as many of those who "comment" throw at you. You are supportive and hopeful re President Obama; you are accurate in your history of events; you sound a note of cautious optimism, which I believe echoes the best of American thinking re this part of the world.
It might be interesting to see one of these moronic "haters" write his/her own name on the rot they spew instead of names like "MGloraine," "jhny," "The Baffler."
But ...they do provide a clue to why Israel faces what it does, ad infinitum. --Marylin Pitz

[RobotRockRod]

So whats your alternative??

- Kick em out?
- kill em all? (exaggeration, i know)
- Make Palestinians part of Israel?
- More "regime change" all around?
- Keep the status quo ?

i really never hear a true alternative option from those who are "concern" about Obama's approach to this conflict. Bibi(and this article) has'nt presented anything better than a 2 State solution.

I COMPLETELY agree Palestinian terrorism is wrong, cannot justify blowing up kids no matter what Israel have done wrong.
But how is building settlements a way....to stop it?
How is building settlements decrease anger against Israel?
how does it help Moderate/n­on-violent­/Hippi Palestinians make a case for you to other Palestinians?

If you sincerely support Obama's diplomatic push, great. But Diplomacy needs results, if O fails to get Israel to at least stop the building of Settlements, why should ANY Palestinian believe self-determination is possible in any way? Palestinians need to recognize Israel right to exist, and i CANNOT believe i have to say that Israel need to recognize Palestinian's right too.

[WarSkeptic]

"The recent history of U.S. peacemaking efforts in the region is rife with hubris: for decades, U.S. presidents have flattered themselves into thinking that they could impose a solution in the region without addressing the core problem: the leadership of Arab countries"

Yawn.
So the core of the problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians is someone else?
That seems like a convenient way of avoiding the problem for another few years huh?

And btw, you are way behind in the current talking points. Did you not get the memo? The new set of talking points say that Israel is to form an alliance with the Arab nations and fight a war against Persia
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mort-zuckerman/irans-aggression-could-jo_b_201610.html

[MajorKong]

"Israelis are among the few democratic allies the U.S. has who have never expected Americans to fight or die for them"

So that's why I almost got killed in 1991 trying to stop Iraqi SCUDs from hitting Tel Aviv?

You're welcome.

[ttomy]

Regardless of your feelings on the issue, one thing is certain. You were not defending Tel Aviv. Israel had no hand in the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq invaded and conquered Kuwait. The U.S. (with U.N., Saudi and Arab support) kicked them out. If you recall, Israel did not retaliate at that time at the US's specific request.

[DC]

"Israel had no hand in the 1991 Gulf War."

Israeli fighter pilots were given US passports to fly missions and land in Saudi Arabia.

This is not conspiracy stuff, but the way much of it was carried out. Speak with anyone in the AF at that place and time.

[bruster55]

Isreal has attacked us before. June 8, 1967. The murdered the men on the USS Liberty.

Do not ever trust an Isrealli.

[Lederman's Assistant]

Heather makes a good point. Look at what has happened in the Gaza Strip. It is unacceptable to deny that the Arab leadership has spent more time and money trying to destroy Israel than build up their own land. What Palestinians need to do is focus on creating a better place for their people by investing in infrastructure, schools and hospitals. Instead they smuggle arms and rockets into Gaza to indiscriminately fire at S'derot. Hamas is unable to lead a free, safe country. Are we going to let that happen in the West Bank?

[gageeandbaba]

Israel aided by my tax money and the Guilty Germans and Brits helped create this problem. The Arabs and Muslims are not MY enemy, they weren't the ones hanging men from trees...

[NorthernMan]

so, you want to keep the Palestinians where they are? Your plan then is to keep squeezing them? Then what? Don't give them a state and don't talk to them and don't let them leave but don't let them stay is working great. My president doesn't need reminding, he is well aware of the facts.

[jhNY]

Can't we get an essay here by Dershowitz to counter-balance this one? Or maybe Mort Zuckerman could be persuaded to to pen a little something on the subject. Seems only fair...

[libslayerguy]

Dershowitz? Counter-balance? I would not look to him for a fair-minded and even-handed response to this article. I'd bet that he agrees 100% with Ms. Robinson's views. You ever read the blogs posted here by Dershowitz on this subject? You'll see that he is as one-sided in his views as is Ms. Robinson.

Mort on the other hand can be trusted to voice reasoned analysis that doesn't pretend that only one side has committed transgressions against the other.

[jhNY]

I suppose this essay made its way to the site to incite the readership to heated commentary, as it is one-sided agit-prop and intellectually disgraceful in concept and content. The hardest truth to grasp evidently is truth itself. And Bibi is the last guy on this earth to bring truth from anyplace to anyplace else.