ADVERTISEMENT

The Obama Administration has Failed Israel

David Horovitz lays out how ally Israel has been let down by the U.S.

AP

In the wake of the United States’ quick decision to recognize the Palestinian Authority’s new unity government based on a partnership with a Hamas group that remains committed to the complete obliteration of Israel, Times of Israel editor David Horovitz has outlined twelve ways that the Obama administration has failed its ally Israel.

The latest failure by the administration towards Israel, explains Horovitz, is "Washington’s insistence on accepting [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas’s paper-thin veneer over his government’s new nature" because it "does not include members affiliated with Hamas"—though all the ministers in the new unity government were approved by Hamas.

The administration chose to take this step without asking for anything in return, even a simple statement that "it would be happy to work with Abbas’s new government, the moment its Hamas backers recognized Israel, accepted previous agreements and renounced terrorism."

The blatant failure of legitimizing "an organization with a proven, mass-murdering track-record" is just the beginning, Horovitz explains.

2. Going back to the start of the latest failed peace effort, you’d think an ally would listen to the advice of well-meaning experts warning that attempting to do the same thing that failed in the past in the belief that it will turn out differently — in this case, strong-arming two hostile, untrusting parties into an acutely sensitive and complex agreement in a very short period — is the definition of insanity. Rather than setting an impossible nine-month timeframe for negotiating a permanent accord, when all reasonable evidence and past experience showed that this would fail, it would have been better for the US and its international allies to start working systematically, investing time, money and leverage in, among other spheres, education and media, in order to create a climate conducive to progress. Peacemaking is going to require a gradual process, grass-roots change; there is no quick fix. Every credible, peace-supporting voice on the ground here told the Americans exactly this before they set out. And was ignored. And now we all have to brace for the dangerous consequences of the all-too-predictable failure.

Throughout the course of the recent peace talks the administration has not acted with Israel’s best interests in mind, publicly putting the blame on Israel for the failure of negotiations that were doomed from the beginning.

6. Trapped in the inevitable deadlock, with that nine-month deadline fast approaching, you would think that an allied president would eschew giving an interview to the American media essentially accusing the prime minister of leading Israel to disaster at the very hour that said prime minister was on his way to a meeting at the White House. For one thing, such withering public comments are hardly likely to bolster the prime minister’s faith in the president’s judgment and solidarity — and thus are likely to undermine efforts to build his trust. For another, it’s downright rude.

7. And when it all went conclusively pear-shaped, you’d think an ally would respect its own rules about not leaking the content of the negotiations. Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly urged the two sides to keep the content of their talks confidential, yet it was his own special envoy, Martin Indyk, reportedly, who gave a lengthy briefing to Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea, a respected columnist but one who is hardly empathetic to Netanyahu, which yielded an article that unsurprisingly placed overwhelming and at least somewhat unwarranted and distorted blame for the collapse of the process on the prime minister.

It is nothing new for the administration to look past a desire for the destruction of Israel, as shown by the case of allowing Iran to work toward achieving uranium enrichment capability.

12. And finally, you’d think a powerful ally would insist that a state that calls for, and works toward, the destruction of Israel be denied the capacity to achieve that goal. There is simply no justification for allowing Tehran a uranium enrichment capability. It lied to the international community about its nuclear program. It built secret facilities to advance towards the bomb. It has no "right" to enrichment. It can receive nuclear fuel, like well over a dozen nations worldwide, from legitimate nuclear powers for its ostensibly peaceful nuclear program. The central goal of US policy in this regard should not be merely denying Iran nuclear weapons but denying Iran the capacity to build nuclear weapons. Iran can be relied upon to abuse any leniency in this regard, with immense consequent threat to Israel and others in the region. The Obama administration’s curious disinclination to use its economic leverage to achieve a deal that dismantles Iran’s nuclear program leaves Israel in real danger, undermines the security of other US interests in the region, and risks sparking a Middle East nuclear arms race — the very opposite of the president’s cherished vision of eventual nuclear disarmament.

"Israel may not be a perfect ally, but we deserve better than this," concludes Horovitz.