Any doubt about howthe United States makes its policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shouldbe dispelled by the Obama administration's near-instant reaction to the Fatah-Hamasreconciliation announcement: it is determined to be fully in sync with PrimeMinister Netanyahu. Without even hearing the details of the agreement, theWhite House, as reported in the NewYork Times, "all but dismissed" it:
The White House, which hasbeen debating how best to revive peace talks ahead of an address to Congressnext month by Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu, all but dismissed the proposed reconciliation by reiterating thelongstanding American designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization that hasnever expressed a willingness to recognize Israel, let alone negotiate with it.
"As we have said before, theUnited States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote thecause of peace," Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said in theadministration's only public response. "Hamas, however, is a terroristorganization which targets civilians."
He added that any Palestinian government had to accept certainprinciples announced by international negotiators known as the Quartet: theUnited Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. They includerenouncing violence, abiding by past agreements with the Israelis andrecognizing Israel's right to exist. Hamas has never agreed to thoseconditions.
Then Congress spoke.Gary Ackerman, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee anda pro- Netanyahu stalwart, weighedin on the agreement:
"It calls into question everything we have done," Representative GaryL. Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said in a telephone interview. He laterissued a statement saying the United States would be compelled by "both law anddecency" to cut off all aid.
"I don't think there is any will on the part of the administration orthe Congress to provide funds to a government that is dominated by a dedicatedterrorist organization," he said.
On a roll, Ackermanthensaid that the deal "will be paid forwith the lives of innocent Israelis." Ackerman, like most of his colleagues,never seems to notice all the innocent Palestinians who die at Israeli hands (many,many more thanthe number of Israelis who are killed by Palestinians), as evidenced by hischeerleading for the Gaza war. Nor didhe care that he did not know the terms of the Fatah-Hamas agreement.
Of course,Ackerman's statement is typical of the congressional response. In fact, one ofthe reasons that AIPAC cutouts like Ackerman are first to issue press releaseson any matter related to Israel is to set the tone for their colleagues byindicating what the right (i.e., politically safe) position is.
But the positionitself is dead wrong.
The right position wouldbe to simply wait and see what the Hamas-Fatah agreement says. Already today, Haaretz isreporting that, under the terms of the agreement, President Mahmoud Abbaswill be handling negotiations for any new unity government. (As usual, the Israeli view of events in itsown region is not as stridently "pro-Israel" as in Washington.)
Considering thateven Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly praised Abbas for his commitmentto peace, it is just possible that Hamas will, following Abbas's lead, changeits position in coming days.
Unfortunately, theU.S. reaction to the Hamas-Fatah agreement makes any such change less likely.
In fact, theadministration's demand that Hamas recognize Israel in advance of anynegotiations with Israel could well ensure that there won't be any. So couldour demand that it accept all previous agreements negotiated by the PalestinianAuthority.
All of these issueswould naturally be addressed in the context of negotiations. Demanding that Hamas accept them in advance —a position devised by the Israeli government and then pushed on the UnitedStates and the European Union — is an act of diplomatic sabotage.
There is only onedemand we should make of Hamas, that it cease all acts of violence. Hamashas, in fact, lived up to that commitment duringvarious cease-fire periods with Israel. In partnership with Fatah, it wouldlikely do so again.
In any case, amutual cease-fire is a reasonable demand, one that would facilitate negotiations.But the people issuing demands in Jerusalem and in Congress seem to have nointerest in negotiating. Their goal is delivering for Israel which, of course,is a way of delivering for their campaigns.
This is the thirdtime in the last few months that the combination of Netanyahu and the lobby(including, of course, its congressional allies) have successfully pressuredthe administration to do its bidding. The firstcame when the United States was forced to stand all alone at the United Nationsand veto a resolution condemning Israeli settlements (a resolution thatembodied the Obama administration's own policy). The secondwas when the administration said that it would oppose any Palestiniandeclaration of statehood at the United Nations this coming fall.
It appears that theadministration has little interest in playing the role of "honest broker," atleast until after Election Day 2012. And after that, there is the 2014 congressionalelection. And then the 2016 presidential election. And so it goes.
Meanwhile, asGeneral David Petraeus famouslywarned us last year, the perception that the United States is in Israel'spocket "presents distinct challenges to our ability to advance ourinterests...Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength anddepth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples" in the Middle East.
But, hey, that'sonly the national interest he's talking about. What does a general know aboutpolitics?