This article is published at PJMedia.
By Barry Rubin
Many political criticisms, particularly during an election year, are
subjective and can be challenged. Has something been taken out of
context? A claim misunderstood? A word twisted? What’s special about
analyzing the Democratic Party platform over Israel is that it is easy to take the text and show how support for Israel has been reduced, in some cases shockingly so.
This is the draft platform and it was written by experts. The problem is
the identity of those experts. This platform is a combination of “we
love Israel” rhetoric (put in by the politicians?) with some serious
policy problems (put in by their advisors?).
The Democratic response has been denial. Oh, no, there is nothing new or
different and the platform corresponds with standard U.S. policy. The
first half of that statement is a lie; the second half is technically
true but in some ways it shows the replacement of the traditional
over-promising on Israel to what might be called the standard historical
State Department line. The base line, then, has been pulled back. If
you start out promising the kid a pony you’ve got to produce something
impressive; if your initial offer is a text on grammar one can expect
less to be delivered in the end.
Moreover, this is not some case of working with the left-of-center in
Israeli politics. The key issues with this platform go against the
Israeli consensus, not just Likud preferences. Finally, while more
amusing than damaging, there’s a lot of bragging about things attributed
to Obama that are either standard U.S. policy under his predecessors or
due to bipartisan action in Congress.
But here’s the thing that upset me just as much. The title of the
section under which Israel appears is entitled, “Strengthening
Alliances, Expanding Partnerships, and Reinvigorating International
Institutions.” There is only one sentence about all the Middle Eastern
countries other than Israel! It is of vital importance for U.S.
interests, and for Israel, too, that the United States continues to
maintain good cooperation with a dozen specific Arab states. The
platform is an insult to America’s Arab allies, who have been dissed by
Obama as he has tended to help or support their enemies.
Here I'll focus on the Israel section:
“The Middle East. President Obama and the Democratic
Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel's security. A strong
and secure Israel is vital to the United States not simply because we
share strategic interests, but also because we share common values. For
this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked
with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single
year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three
years. The administration has also worked to ensure Israel's
qualitative military edge in the region.
And we have deepened defense cooperation—including funding the Iron Dome
system—to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the
growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza
Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. The President's consistent support for
Israel's right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any
attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence
of our enduring commitment to Israel's security.
“It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the
Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians. A just
and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two
peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain
Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state. At the same time,
the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless
Israel's security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to
press Arab states to reach out to Israel. We will continue to support
Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars
of peace and stability in the region for many years. And even as the
President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to
be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian
partner must recognize Israel's right to exist, reject violence, and
adhere to existing agreements.
Sounds pretty good? But consider the following issues:
--Jerusalem is not mentioned at all. In previous platforms, the
Democrats supported the idea of Jerusalem as being and remaining
Israel’s capital and an undivided city. The platform may adhere to U.S.
official policy but not to the party’s historic position but not to the
promises Obama made to Jewish voters at AIPAC and elsewhere. This switch
has made headlines in Israel with even left-wingers angry and upset.
--Terms of a peace agreement. Previous platforms have clearly stated
that Palestinian refugee should be resettled in a state of Palestine.
The Palestinian Authority’s demand that all Palestinians who want to do
so with any historical claim to having been there before 1948 can go and
live in Israel (“the right of return”). This is a deal-killer for all
Israeli parties and everyone in the Middle East will notice the change.
If this seems obscure to you, let me assure you that this is of huge
significance.
--There is no explicit reference to the Gaza Strip and Hamas, except for
the anti-rocket system. Previously, the platform called for isolating
Hamas. Obama undermined this by demanding a reduction in Israeli
sanctions after the flotilla incident. By helping a new, Muslim
Brotherhood government take power in Egypt—a regime allied to
Hamas—Obama has made this the most dangerous front for Israel. The
Democratic platform suggests that the party recognizes no specific
danger in Hamas.
--There is also no reference to Hizballah and its threat to Israel from
Lebanon, again except for the anti-rocket system. This threat led to a
war in 2006 and poses a constant terrorist threat.
In other words, this is part of an overall pattern of playing down the
threat of revolutionary Islamism or the idea that the Muslim
Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizballah, or other Salafists and Jihadists pose
some big problem.
On a number of points, the party tries to take credit for just
continuing historic policies or for bipartisan things everyone
supported, aid and military cooperation specifically.
For me, the most offensive passage is this one:
“The President's consistent support for Israel's right to defend itself
and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on
the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to
Israel's security.”
In fact, no president has done more to do less about fighting the
delegitimization of Israel by his own statements and actions than has
Obama. And in some cases, especially regarding Gaza, he has not really
supported Israel’s right to defend itself in practice. I will leave the
Iran issue and U.S. behavior in the UN for your own evaluation regarding
this point but one could compile a long list of items in each case.
Regarding the “peace process,” Obama’s pressing Arab states to move
toward peace with Israel lasting a couple of weeks and was never a
serious, sustained policy. He has literally never criticized the
Palestinian Authority and its behavior nor has he ever pressed them very
hard, that kind of thing is reserved exclusively for the Democratic
platform.
As for defending the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, while Obama did make
some gesture to help secure an Egyptian pull-back last month, to portray
him as helping to preserve that document is a joke.
Finally, past Democratic platforms have clearly taken Israel's side,
making it clear that they viewed Israel as the party sincerely trying to
resolve the dispute and the other side obstructing a solution. Despite
some of its language, this platform is neutral basically. Yes, it
highlights burdens on the Palestinians rather than on Israel, but it
gives no hint as to why there has been no progress toward peace. This
may be more understandable in a U.S. government document and Obama is in
fact the president, but this is the party platform. Historically, the
Democratic Party--pressed by members of Congress--wanted to show that it
was on Israel's side. Who better than Bill Clinton, even though he
doesn't tell the truth about it today, saw in the 1990s how the
Palestinian side sabotaged peace and the Arab states didn't help?
Yet this is a party dominated by a top-down group far more to the left,
less friendly to Israel, run more by the Progressive Caucus types in
Congress, and using "experts" who are often openly hostile to Israel.
They put in the boilerplate to keep the suckers--and party
moderates--happy but also subtly signal that they don't mean it.
I will analyze the platform’s broader view of the region in another
article but again note that except for a vague promise of support for
the Persian Gulf Arab states to defend themselves, the platform sees no
other “alliances” or “partnerships” other than Israel. This section is
thus just to titillate Jewish and pro-Israel voters. If they read it
closely it would have the opposite effect.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other
recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long
War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle
East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment