Google+
Close
Explaining Obama’s Fixation with Israel
The Left thinks the Arab-Israeli conflict is key to world problems.


Text  


Daniel Pipes

It’s not just that he’s spending days in Israel this week, but that he has spent a disproportionate amount of time over the last four years searching for a solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict. On his first full day as president in 2009, Obama appointed George Mitchell as special envoy for the Middle East and telephoned the leaders of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. The White House press secretary justified this surprising emphasis by saying that Obama used his first day in office “to communicate his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term.” A few days later, Obama granted his first formal interview as president to Al Arabiya television channel.

Nor did he subsequently let up. In June 2009, Obama announced that “The moment is now for us to act” to ease tensions between Israel and its neighbors and declared, “I want to have a sense of movement and progress. . . . I’m confident that if we stick with it, having started early, that we can make some serious progress this year.” In May 2011, he announced that he was impatient with  the state of Arab-Israeli diplomacy: “We can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace.” The new secretary of state, John Kerry, repeated these sentiments in his January 2013 confirmation hearing: “We need to try to find a way forward.”

Advertisement

Why this fixation on the Arab-Israeli conflict, which ranks only 49th in fatalities in conflicts since World War II? Because of a strange belief on the left, rarely stated overtly, that this issue is key not just to the Middle East but to world problems.

For an unusually frank statement of this viewpoint, note the spontaneous, awkward comments of James L. Jones, then Obama’s national-security adviser, in October 2009. In an address to J Street, he mentioned “pursuing peace between Israel and her neighbors” and continued:

Of all the problems the administration faces globally, that if there was one problem that I would recommend to the president that if he could do anything he wanted to solve one problem, this would be it. Finding a solution to this problem has ripples that echo, that would run globally and affect many other problems that we face elsewhere in the globe. The reverse is not true. This is the epicenter, and this is where we should focus our efforts. And I am delighted that this administration is doing so with such enthusiasm and commitment.

Although delivered a year before the Arab uprising, this statement is worth parsing because it provides an important insight into the White House’s worldview.

Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict would “affect many other problems that we face elsewhere in the globe.” Jones implies that the conflict’s continuation exacerbates those problems. In one sense, his point is trite: Of course, ending any conflict improves the overall atmosphere. But it staggers the imagination to think that the White House awaits resolution on Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees to handle Kurdish restlessness, Islamist assaults, Syrian civil insurrection, Iranian nuclear ambitions, Egyptian economic travails, and Yemeni anarchy.

The reverse is not true.” Why would solving other problems not ameliorate the Arab-Israeli conflict? No proof backs up this blithe, illogical drivel. Defeating Islamism, obviously, would indeed help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, as would preventing the Iranian bomb.

This is the epicenter.” In 2009, the Islamist surge had already riven the Middle East into Iranian- and Saudi-led cold-war blocs: Israel and the Palestinians were not then and are not now the regional center. Arguably, Iran, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia is.

This is where we should focus our efforts.” Here we get to the nub: Jones wants a focus on housing in Jerusalem and electricity grids in the West Bank rather than on stopping the Iranian nuclear program, assuring oil and gas supplies, dealing with the pattern of dictatorships vs. Islamist insurgencies, or dealing with the increasingly rogue government of Turkey.

At least Jones did not make the outlandish and borderline anti-Semitic claim that Israel is responsible for all problems in the Middle East; but his milder version of this canard is no less dangerously misguided. His analysis, sadly, neatly fits the anti-Zionist mentality that increasingly pervades the left wing of the Democratic party.

To understand Obama’s visit to Israel, the next four years, and European Union diplomacy, keep this strange and contorted logic in mind.

Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2013 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review