Obama's Final Act of Betrayal

Image courtesy of www.politico.com

After weeks of speculation as to how the US will vote at the UN Security Council when presented with the resolution condemning Israel's policy regarding the so-called "settlements", we now have a clear and unequivocal answer.  In the vote held on Friday, Barack Obama instructed his ambassador to the UN to abstain from the vote at the Security Council.  This action allowed the motion to be carried, with 14 countries voting in favour and 1 country (the USA) abstaining.  Had Obama decided to vote against the resolution, it would not have been carried despite the majority voting in favour.  Because the USA has a veto right at the UN Security Council, it had the power to defeat the motion on its own.  This veto right was not exercised on Friday.

The decision by the USA delegation to abstain from Friday's vote flies in the face of USA policy at the UN Security Council in recent years on the subject of resolutions condemning Israel.  In the words of outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, Israel has been the victim of a disproportionate number of resolutions condemning her actions at the hands of various UN organisations.  One could interpret this to mean that Israel has been unfairly targeted by the UN, and unjustifiably singled out for constant criticism and condemnation.  The USA has somewhat redressed this imbalance by exercising its right of veto at the Security Council over the years, and has ensured that the unfair condemnations of Israel are not allowed to stand, at least in that forum.  The most recent example of this was in 2011, when the Obama administration vetoed a resolution that condemned Israel's settlement activity.  The resolution on that occasion was remarkably similar to the one passed by the Security Council on Friday by virtue of the US abstention.  So what has changed in 5 short years, that justified the US turning its back on Israel at this time?

In 2011, there was a great deal more at stake for President Obama.  He had been in office for approximately 3 years, and was already eyeing his re-election with the hope of returning to the White House for 4 more years.  His decision to veto the resolution on that occasion was all about serving his interest at that time, rather than showing what he genuinely felt and believed.  Fast-forward 5 years, and Obama has no political capital to win or lose from the Security Council vote.  He will vacate the Oval Office in less than a month, and this vote has no bearing on his future whatsoever.  The only reason that he would vote in one direction or another, is to reflect his genuine view on the matter.  This view is shown loudly and clearly in a resolution that is one-sided and false in its depiction of the reality.  This is the legacy that Obama and Kerry are leaving on their peace-making efforts over the years, that were presented as being fair and even-handed.

This act puts an entire 8 year presidency into context.  There were many conspiracy theories about what Obama's true position on Israel was.  Was he influenced by the fact that he comes from Muslim heritage?  Was he genuinely sympathetic to Israel's struggle for survival?  Did he understand that the obstacles to peace are numerous, and not only the fault of one party or the other?  He tried to cloud the answers to these questions, and presented himself as a friend of Israel throughout his term in office.  This single act at the end of his presidency, however, has clarified all that has gone before.    While Israel would never wish to oppose the possibility of reaching a genuine agreement with the Palestinians, it has always been important to Israel that any agreement be reached on the basis of mutual respect and recognition between the parties.  This respect and recognition has been sorely missing from the Palestinian side.

The only real purpose that this resolution serves, is to continue to perpetrate the view that Israel is solely to blame for the lack of progress towards peace.  And Israel's policy on settlements is an easy scapegoat to use to illustrate why Israel should be blamed.  If it was true that the settlements are the main obstacle to peace, why was peace not achieved in the period from 1948 to 1967, when there were no settlements to blame.  Not only was peace not achieved, the Arabs were hell-bent on destroying Israel at any and every opportunity.  But now, the settlements are being presented as the only reason for the lack of a peace agreement.  Where is the criticism of the fact that the Palestinians refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, that has a right to live in peace and security?  Or of the fact that the PLO charter continues to call for the destruction of the State of Israel?  Or the continuous terror attacks that Israelis are forced to endure?  These were conveniently ommitted from the UN Security Council resolution, and this emphasizes how one-sided how this resolution really is.

If the resolution served to somehow move the peace process forward or to make a positive contribution the situation, I would be able to understand Obama's decision to allow it to stand on the record.  Unfortunately, this is not the case.  Instead, it is a pointless finger-pointing exercise that makes little contribution to the creation of a positive environment for peace-making.  And now, it is clearer as to who is pointing at whom.  Obama, your true colours have been revealed.  Shame on you.

Does Israel Really Care That Trump Was Elected?

The US presidential election is thankfully finally over.  The American people have spoken, and Donald Trump will be the next US president.  Now it is time for the Democrats in the US to accept the result and the way in which US democracy works, and to get on with living the next four years as positively as possible.

Many around the world have taken an interest in the election.  Some people have been involved in this almost to the extent that they are involved in their own local elections.  Such is the extent of the global influence exerted by the US and its leader.  Israel has been no exception, with media continually carrying the latest US election stories and Israelis following the stories very closely.  In Israel's case, it is understandable that individual Israelis have an interest in the outcome of the election.  The US is Israel's most important international ally, which is helpful for a country that continues to fight an international battle against those who call for her destruction.  There are many Israelis who believe that the views of the US president could be a great influence on  the safety and the security of the State of Israel.  But how much of a difference does it really make to Israel as to who is sitting in the Oval Office?  Is it possible that Trump could be so much better for Israel's interests than Hillary would have been?  Would Hillary really have been such a disaster for Israel's interests if she had been elected, as many Israelis believe?

Because it is true that Republican presidents have historically been more understanding of Israel's security challenges over the years and have been more supportive of Israel's position, many Israelis assume that a Republican president will automatically be better for Israel than a president representing the Democrat party.  There is certainly some justification to that point of view.  But I am not convinced that one president can really be so much better for the interests of the State of Israel than another.  While I feel that Trump may be a more understanding president for Israel, I am tempering my expectations about how the extent to which he will really be able to help Israel's cause.  In the same way, I am not convinced that Hillary would have been so terrible for Israel, in the way that some of her detractors like to present.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump made some remarks during his election campaign that were pleasing to the ears of many Israelis.  His desire to move the US embassy to Jerusalem would finally bring some international recognition of Israel's rights to Jerusalem as her capital.  His desire to build a wall along the US border with Mexico shows some understanding of Israel's construction of a safety wall in some parts of the country to reduce terrorist attacks.  His comments about keeping tighter controls over Iran have come in contrast to US policy pursued to date, and stand out in criticism of Iran's antagonistic position towards Israel.  But these, and other positive comments, were all simply electioneering rhetoric.  I am sure that Trump understood that many Jews in the US were Hillary supporters, and he wanted to find a way to convince at least some of them to vote for him.  US policy on Israel is a sure-fire way to get US Jews to think twice about who they wish to support in the election, and it is quite conceivable that Trump was using this lever to try to win support.  It is not obvious that any of these desires will come to fruition during his term as president, despite the best will in the world.  Making small things happen takes a huge effort, even if you are president of the US.  There is a constant battle against interest groups and bureaucracy, and President Trump will have his work cut out to make things happen.  We can expect that he will give up on pushing through legislation that he has no particular interest to pursue, especially if the headwinds are strong.  I suspect that the move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem falls into this category.

The Obama presidency is regarded by many Israelis to have been one of the toughest for Israel.  President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu did not get along on a personal level, and this relationship characterised the period during which Obama was in office.  The agreement with Iran, which worked against Israel's national interest, is surely a result of his personal lobbying.  Despite this, many positive things were achieved for Israel during Obama's presidency.  The only veto cast by the US at the UN Security Council during Obama's presidency was on a resolution condemning Israel.  The US opposed attempts by the Palestinian Authority to gain membership of international organisations, even during the Obama presidency.  The US supplied Israel with sorely-needed weapons during Operation Protective Edge, and the defence loan guarantee agreement, providing millions of dollars of military aid to Israel, was renewed.  Despite Obama and his criticisms of Israel, Israel somehow succeeded in doing all that was required to protect her national security and to enjoy eight years of growth and relative prosperity.

This all indicates that the presidency, and the relationship between the two countries, is larger than one individual.  It all about national interests and priorities, and these do not change substantially when a new president takes office.  Israel will continue to be the only democracy in the Middle East and, therefore, of major importance to the US's national interests in a highly volatile part of the world.  And the US will continue to be a source of huge support to Israel's economic and defence needs.  Sometimes the relationship will be slightly closer, and at other times less so.  But it will always be important, at least for the foreseeable future.  This is in spite of anybody who may be resident in the White House.  What Israel really cares about is that the US continues to occupy its position of dominance in the international community.

I am sure that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu will have a closer relationship than the one that existed between Obama and Netanyahu.  This will be good news.  I am sure that Israel will find an ear that is prepared to listen when talking to the Trump administration, so that is also good news.  I am equally sure that Trump will not have a free hand to carry out all of his election promises, so expectations should be tempered.  Overall, indications are good, but we should be cautious to judge things only by results.  Predicting how things will be ahead of time is dangerous. 

If the Obama presidency was bad for Israel, and Israel survived it relatively unscathed, it is fair to assume that Israel can survive almost any president and situation.  I think that Hillary would probably have been better than Obama for Israel, and it may be the case that Trump will be better than both of them.  But Israel will survive and prosper irrespective of who rules the Oval Office.  Israel is simply too important of an ally to the US for any US president to neglect the US relationship with Israel.

It is my hope that Trump will live up to the expectations of those who believe that he will do well for the US and for Israel.  And I hope that all his detractors will be pleasantly surprised as time goes by.  Mainly, I hope that he will maintain the US's position on the global stage.  We will only really be able to judge this in four years time.

The Case in Favour of Acting Against Syria

The UN weapons inspection team has left Syria, after completing its investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria in an attack a couple of weeks ago.  Following the horrific scenes that were splashed across our TV screens and strong intelligence corroboration, it is difficult to anticipate that the UN team will conclude that no chemicals were used.  Indeed, there has been strong intelligence and media information to suggest that this is not the first chemical attack in Syria over the past couple of years.  With reports that 1,000 were killed in the most recent attack, however, it is by far the most serious use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War so far.

Not only is the use of chemical weapons abhorrent to all sensible people, it is also outlawed by a number of international treaties and UN resolutions.  Syria's use of chemical weapons is an anathema to anybody who has any sensitivity to human suffering.  It is also an act that is objectively illegal in terms of international law.  The fact that these weapons were used by a government on its own people, is a fact that is extemely difficult to understand.  People should ordinarily be defended against terrible attacks like this by its national government, in the same way as young children should be defended by their parents.  When the parents are guilty of causing damage to the children, an outside body needs to be available to step in to protect those who are innocent and have no others to protect them.  The same is true of the situation in Syria.  This is the moment for the international community to step in, and protect the innocent men, women and children of Syria from being hurt by their own government forces.  It is also the moment for the international community to send the message that contravention of international law has consequences.

For Israelis and for Jews, the requirement for the international community to act is a much more personal issue.  The dithering of the international community in situations like this almost always evokes the parallel of the failure of the international community to act against the Nazi genocide machine.  International forces were implored to bomb the train tracks that led to the Auschwitz extermination camp, but refused to do so.  Millions of lives were lost as a result.  Jews can never forget this failure to respond.  For Jews living in Israel, it goes even further.   Failure to act against Syria could put Israel's security at direct risk.  There can be no doubt that Syria is watching to see if the world responds to this event, as a precedent for how it may behave in the future.  Syria's benefactor, Iran, is also watching with eager eyes.  Until now, Iran has been allowed to develop its nuclear weapons program with impunity.  By seeing that the international community does not respond to protect innocent people and international law when required, Syria and Iran will be led to understand that they have a free hand to do almost as they please in the future by virtue of the failure on the part of the international community to respond.  This is a message that we cannot afford to send.

It is understandable that the major world powers are war-weary, and are not seeking to open a new front after having fought harsh and costly battles in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years.  Their reluctance to get involved in Syria is all the more understandable after it transpired that the Second Gulf War was instigated after publication of faulty intelligence information.  These events damaged reputations, and harmed the trust that was placed in world leaders at the time by their citizens.  Nobody amongst the current world leaders wishes to repeat these mistakes.  The British House of Commons has already voted, and rejected British military participation in Syria.  President Obama confounded even his closest advisers by deciding to seek the approval of Congress before taking action in Syria.  This approval is by no means assured, despite the strong conviction on the part of the president that action is required.  The American people, and Congress, needs to be more convinced that this will not end up being another Iraq or Afghanistan for US troops.  Somehow, world leaders need to be able to to sell the importance of intervention in order to get the support of their local constituencies.

There are a number of precedents in recent years for short, sharp operations that do not draw foreign troops into a protracted war.  Libya is one example that springs to mind.  This would surely be a good template to use in Syria.  It represents a sound solution that will mean the international community responds to unacceptable behaviour, while foreign forces are not drawn into protracted commitments in faraway countries.  The objective of such an operation will surely be to destroy stockpiles of chemical weapons still being stored in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and other countries. Such an action will make the region and the world a better and safer place.

The IDF remains on high alert in anticipation of a possible US strike on Syria.  For Israel, such a strike is a double-edged sword.  On the one hand it sends a message to Syria and Iran that the US remains ready and willing to intervene militarily in the region if rquired, and also will possibly destroy stockpiles of dangerous weapons held on Israel's borders.  On the other hand, a strike on Syria by the US will almost certainly elicit a strike on Israel by Syria.  Syria will not wish to have its honour publicly dragged through the mud by the US in the case of a strike by it on Syria.  The only realistic way for Syria to retaliate against the US is to strike its closest regional ally, Israel, in response.  It is for this reason that the IDF is on high alert, and the reason that many Israelis are opposed to a US strike on Syria.  By the US turning a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Israel will be assured a greater prospect of peace and quiet in the short-term.  In the longer-term, however, this would be a much more dangerous situation.  Syria will continue to build its stockpile of chemical weapons on Israel's border, and will continue to understand that they can use them with impunity and without necessarily being held to account.

In spite of the obvious short-term threat to Israel, it is my view that US and the international community needs to step in to respond to these actions as a matter of priority.  Syria cannot be left in any doubt about the unacceptability of using chemical weapons.  This will also send a clear message to Iran about the willingness of the international community to intervene when required.  I have every faith in the IDF, and its ability to repel any attack that Syria may launch on Israel in retaliation to a US attack on Syria.

Any action of war should be taken seriously, as it always results in people being killed.  Even if the US manages to undertake a short, sharp and concentrated attack on Syria, it will inevitably result in loss of life. This may even risk Israeli lives depending on how Syria chooses to respond.  I have no doubt, however, that this is preferable to the alternative which allows Syria to believe that it has free reign to behave as it pleases in the future.  Actions involving chemical weapons should always have consequences, and this is no exception.  Teaching Syria (and Iran) this lesson now, will ensure greater regional stability in the longer-term.

Is the Time Right?

US Secretary of Sate John Kerry is back in the Middle East this weekend to try to progress peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  This is clearly an attempt to capitalise on the recent visit of President Barack Obama, and to try to maintain the momentum which the president tried to ignite when meeting with the parties a few weeks ago.

While any effort that may progress the peace process is welcome, there is also a question about the timing of the current round of shuttle diplomacy.  Is this simply an attempt to force the American foreign policy agenda onto the Middle Eastern parties to prove that the US administration had tried its best, or is there a genuine feeling that the talks could work out this time where they have failed in the past?  A simple assessment shows that, while there have been some changes on both sides of the political divide in the Middle East, the fundamental issues that led to failure in the past still remain unchanged.  This begs the question as to why the Americans are bothering to spend time and effort on this challenge, when the prospects for success seem no better than before?

President Barack Obama managed to turn a negative public image in Israel into a much more positive one during his recent visit.  He had been roundly criticised for not having visited Israel during his initial term in office, despite the fact that the conflict with the Palestinians was a relatively high priority on the US foreign policy agenda.  The US president was viewed by many in Israel as being more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, and the Muslim cause in general.  This was evidenced by his decision to visit Egypt so early into his presidency, where he made an important foreign policy speech.  His visit to Israel was his first foreign trip in his second presidential term, and has succeeded in convincing at least some of the sceptics that he does have a sympathetic ear for the Israeli side of the story.  He may even have managed to convince some of the Israeli leadership that he understands Israel's position in the conflict.  Perhaps he thinks that he may be able to cajole some of those Israelis who were opposed to his position, into cooperating with him now that they are more convinced of his genuine concern?

The Middle East conflict is far too deep-seated and fundamental to have its path changed on a whim.  There are substantial issues which underly the conflict, that cannot be altered on the strength of people suddenly believing that Obama has their best interests at heart.  The matter that halted the discussions at the previous attempt still very much remains an obstacle today.  This is the important requirement on Israel's part for the Palestinians to be prepared to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.  If Obama's USA is able to give this recognition along with many other countries around the world, there is a real question as to why the Palestinians feel that they cannot.   This reluctance simply gives greater strength to the argument that the Palestinians have a master plan to take over the entire State of Israel, and that this is what is preventing them from recognising it as a Jewish country today.

Over the years that the peace process has been stuck, the Palestinians have succeeded in inching their way up their list of demands without making any real compromises in return.  Their unilateral action at the UN last year is one example of this, but there are many others.  Progressively, they have been able to get the world to recognise them as a state amongst the nations, their main stated requirement from peace talks, without entering into negotiations, making compromises or quid-pro-quo.  It is perhaps for this reason that the Israeli government has been hanging on so tightly to the other bargaining chips it has in its hands, such as the status of Jerusalem and the settlements.  There is an argument to suggest that turning the screws on these critical points is the only way to return the Palestinians to conduct meaningful peace talks.  Why should the Palestinians choose to negotiate and compromise with Israel when the world is granting them their wishes on a platter, even while they continue to behave in a way which is contrary to any peace arrangement?

Perhaps Obama spotted an opportunity to extract a slightly softer negotiating position out of Israel with the formation of the new government, and the inclusion of Tzipi Livni with primary responsibility for peace talks.  This may be his driver for sending Kerry to the region now.  The situation within the Palestinian Authority is also different from before, with Mahmoud Abbas finding himself in a much a weaker position now than was previously the case.  He is ageing and less enthusiastic about his role, and has an uphill battle to counter the tide of popularity that arch-rivals Hamas are riding at the moment.  It is my belief, however, that even these changes are not enough to create the environment that is needed to move peace talks forward.  It is my prediction that this round of talks is doomed to failure, in the same way as previous rounds have failed. There are those who argue that it is better to try and fail, than not try at all.  I do not agree with this.  The current situation on the ground is fairly neutral in terms of relations between Israel and the Palestinians - nothing good and nothing particularly bad.  Instigating a new round of talks that end up on the trash heap will probably create negative feelings, thus causing a deterioration in the overall situation.

President Obama's visit to Israel was vitally important in terms of redressing the imbalance that was created by his special attention to the Muslim side during his first term.  This does not automatically create an opportunity for peace to suddenly break out.  In politics, and especially in Middle Eastern politics, timing is everything.  All indications are that now is simply not the time.

Obama's Israeli Triumph

US President Barack Obama has concluded his trip to Israel after an intensive few days in the Holy Land.  Prior to this visit, Obama was perceived by a majority of the Israeli public as being unsympathetic and unhelpful to Israel's cause in the international community.  Some believe that a US president with the Muslim heritage that Obama has, can never be good for Israel.  Expectations that Obama's visit to Israel would dramatically change his attitude towards Israel were extremely low.

Now that he has been and gone, and we have had the chance to view the course of the visit's events in hindsight (albeit a very close hindsight), I believe that Obama has almost managed to pull off the impossible.  It was a very different Obama who was in Israel from the one who has spent the past four years taking neutral positions on matters which affect Israel.  From the moment that he stepped onto the tarmac at Ben Gurion airport and said in Hebrew that he was happy to be back in Israel, Obama seemed not to put a foot wrong.  He managed to say all the right things to help reverse the negative sentiments towards him.  He paid tribute to Israeli technology and military strength when inspecting the Iron Dome battery at the airport.  He reiterated his intention to continue to fund this program, despite the budget cuts in the US.  He paid tribute to Israeli fallen heroes during his visit to the Mount Herzl cemetery, and paid his tribute to the six million at Yad Vashem.  He met with Israeli students to relate his view of the future to them, and to listen to the things that they had to say.

On the pressing issue of Iran, the US president was eager to reiterate the points of common understanding rather than the differences.  He said that there was little daylight between the Israeli and US positions.  In truth, I think that he refers more to the assessment of what is happening in Iran, rather than the view as to how to deal with it.  Even though nobody expected that there would be a great deal of public discourse on the Iran issue, it was easy to read between the lines that Obama and Netanyahu are not precisely on the same page where this is concerned.  The Israeli public would like to know if Obama will be prepared to sanction military action in sufficient time to prevent the final steps being taken for the construction of an Iranian nuclear bomb.  It is also important to know whether the US commander-in-chief is prepared to commit his forces to be in the front line, or if they will be watching from a distance while Israeli forces are required to do the hard work.  Answers to these questions were not forthcoming in public, and we have the impression that the US answers to these questions are probably not the ones that Israel would prefer to hear.

It was important to hear Obama say that Israel's continued strength will ensure that a Holocaust does not happen in the future.  As much as it is a stark admission to make that it is not the free world and the powers of the UN that will prevent such a genocide in future, it was equally important for him to publicly recognise the central role that Israel plays in the future of Jewish survival.  It was also important to hear him say that being on friendly terms with Israel is in the US national security interest.  Relationships between countries are built on necessity and mutual-dependence, and not on sentiments.  As much as there are some in the US who do feel some sentimental attachment towards Israel, the only thing that will ensure that the US will continue to support Israel in the future, is a national security interest that drives this friendship.

President Obama's trip to Israel was a public relations triumph that saw him win over many Israeli sceptics.  He managed to convince some that America is indeed there to support Israeli, despite the many instances over the past four years when Israel felt isolated by the contrary view adopted by the Obama administration.  Could it be that the next four years will be different, and that there will be more help forthcoming from Obama and his friends in support of Israel?  Only time will tell.  Many feel that the president's appointment of Chuck Hagel to the position of US Secretary of Defense is more reminiscent of the old Obama, rather than a new one.
Hagel is perceived to unsupportive and unsympathetic to Israel's cause.  I do believe that most Israelis are prepared to give Obama the opportunity to prove his credentials again.  His actions over the coming months, particularly with regard to Iran, will be highly influential in convincing people of his true allegiance.

As a parting gift, Obama brokered an apology to be delivered by Prime Minister Netanyahu to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan over the deaths of Turkish activists in the Gaza Flotilla incident three years ago.  While it is clear to see why a united Israel and Turkey serves US national security interests as a buffer against Syria, it is still unclear whether this is good for Israel's interests or not.  This apology by Israel represents a major climb-down on a point of principle, while the benefits sufficient to outweigh this concession are not immediately obvious.

A good relationship with the USA is certainly in Israel's best interests.  But this is not at any price.  Israel wishes to see the US being prepared to speak out and take actions on matters which would benefit Israel in the international community.  With the constant threats that Israel is facing, this is of importance to Israel's future surivival and that of the Jewish people.  Over the course of the next year, this will manifest itself in the support that Israel receives to counter the Iranian threat.  The clock is ticking.......

Four More Years?

As the conventions for the nomination of presidential candidates swing into action, Israeli TV is bombarded with images of American politics at its peak.  It is understandable that Israelis are taking a keen interest in the developments across the Atlantic.  Not only are Israelis generally very well tuned-in to world politics and current affairs, the USA elections hold more than just a passing interest for even the most disinterested Israeli.

The outcome of the American election, and the policies that will accompany the victorious administration, rank among the most important items of interest on the Israeli political calendar.  It is only marginally less important to the Israeli electorate than the outcome of an Israeli domestic election.  Despite the fact that the close ties between Israel and the USA are widely known and understood around the world, it is probably difficult for those not living in Israel to comprehend the full extent of this relationship.  The outcome of the US election could substantially change the nature of the relationship.

The most obvious and public element of this relationship is in the military sphere.  America provides substantial financial help to Israel’s military effort, much of it in the form of loan guarantees.  This is money that is critical to allow Israel to continue to defend her borders.  The money is spent on funding the activities of the army, as well as developing and acquiring arms, weapons and military equipment.   Access to American military hardware is also of vital importance to Israel.  Without this, there are some who believe that Israel’s very existence may be endangered.  Public statements of support and operational support from the USA for Israel’s military activities are also an important part of the relationship.  Although Israel has gone it alone without the USA in the past, and may do so in the future, it is always much easier when the USA is in agreement.  This has never been more clearly in evidence than with the current deliberations over what to do with Iran’s nuclear program.  There is a view that Israel may have acted against the Iranians some time ago if the USA was fully on board.

The US economy is intertwined with that of Israel in many different ways.  Israeli companies are selling substantial volumes of goods and services into the US market.  Many Israeli companies are listed on the America’s NASDAQ stock exchange.  A great deal of American money is invested in Israeli start-up companies, and helps to keep Israeli charities and other institutions alive.  There is no doubt that if America sneezes, Israel catches a cold.

The above are only a few examples out of many that demonstrate how closely the two countries are connected.  And while these examples send a message that the USA is in the supporting role to help Israel, this is not always true.  Having an ally like an Israel, which is the only true democracy in the Middle East, is of essential importance to America and its security needs.  Israel’s technology and military developments as well as its security intelligence act as a source supplying valuable goods and information to the US security establishment.  There can be no doubt that this is a two-way relationship, and that each country is dependent upon the other in different ways.

There were those who predicted from the outset of his presidency, that Barack Obama would not be a good friend to Israel.  How can Israel trust an American president with “Hussein” in his name?  Even his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, found it sufficiently important to pay visits to Israel during his time in office, something that Obama has yet to do.  He has preferred to manage things remotely and intermittently in an inconsistent and disinterested manner.  He has been happy to allow rockets to keep falling from Gaza while encouraging Israel to take “confidence-building” unilateral steps to appease the Palestinians.  He is happy to tolerate calls by Iranian leadership for the destruction of the State of Israel at every public opportunity, and to witness the construction of a deadly nuclear program before his very eyes.  Most problematic of all are his public announcements that he would not support Israeli military action to counter this menacing situation.  These are worrying signs and worrying times.  It is not concerning because Israel is unable to act without America in support. It is worrying because inaction on the part of the free world further emboldens the tyrants, and sends a strong message to them about what can and will be tolerated.

It is unsurprising, therefore, that many Israelis are rooting for Romney.  If the circumstances were different, they would like to support Obama.  He embodies the story of many Jewish families, and of the State of Israel itself.  He is proof that immigrant parents and an underprivileged upbringing need not impede the drive to reach the very top.  Perhaps this is what drove so many US Jews and Israelis to support him at the last election.  While this is a nice story, the issue of Israel’s survival remains uppermost and much more important.  It is for this reason that Israel will be saying that four years has been more than enough.

What Game is Obama is Playing?

US President Barack Obama chose to use the day before the visit to Washington by Prime Minister Netanyahu to make his long-awaited Middle East policy speech. The speech, delivered at the State Department on Thursday, has proved to be huge disappointment to all those involved in the ongoing conflicts and challenges in the region. The speech has left me quite confused about what this president is really trying to achieve in the Middle East. Judging by the reporting of his address in the press, I am not the only one who has been confused by the latest policy statements, or lack of them.

My assumption prior to the president's address was that one of Obama's main objectives in the Middle East is to prevent a vote on Palestinian statehood coming to the UN General Assembly in September, as is currently the plan. It is my expectation that such a vote, if held, would find a majority of countries supporting the declaration of unilateral statehood by the Palestinians. The Arab block would automatically support this vote, no matter what the consequences. In addition, there are many rogue states such as Venezuela and Iran which would not require much convincing to vote in favour of such a resultion. Perhaps more importantly, there are many reasonable countries around the world (including some in Europe) that have become tired of this issue on the agenda for so long. They feel that such a step would at least change the current situation which has prevailed for so long without significant progress. Many are even prepared to risk things turning worse, in the possibility that they may also improve. This is risk is preferable, in the eyes of some, rather than continue the current status quo, which has not produced anything positive until now. Ultimately, I believe that there is little prospect of a UN vote being rejected by a majority of those voting, in spite of the fact that the Palestinians are known not to support Israel's right to exist and are involved in acts of terror. The only way, therefore, to prevent a resolution from passing the vote is to prevent the vote from taking place at all. I believe that Obama is fully aware of this.

His speech at the State Department on Thursday, however, did not reveal anything which supports the idea of working to prevent a vote at the UN. The only way to achieve this is to get the peace talks back on the road, such that the Palestinians feel that they will have more to gain by reopening the peace talks than they would by unilaterally declaring statehood. In order to reopen the peace talks, the Israeli team also needs to be convinced of the vision behind the peace talks, and the fact that Israel's most pressing concerns will be taken care of under the negotitated settlement. In the event, the speech seems to have convinced neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis of the value in renewing the talks. It seems to me that there was no real attempt to try to convince either party by the statements that Obama made. Along with many others, I am searching for Obama's intentions and policy direction in his speech.

I am most amazed by Obama's reference to the 1967 borders (with mutually agreed swaps) as the basis for the Palestinian state. Not only does this contradict a letter written to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon made by Obama's predecessor George W. Bush that referred to the 1949 borders, it has also been made clear by successive Israeli prime ministers that the 1967 borders are indefensible. To expect Israel to agree to having the borders of a Palestinian state run a mere 18kms from Israel's most populous area, Tel Aviv, and to have the distance between the Palestinian state and the Mediterranean Sea being less than 10kms at its narrowest point is foolhardy. The lesson that we have learned from Gaza is that withdrawal from territory simply allows the rocket launchers to be located closer to the heart of the country. It should also be considered that substantial numbers of Israeli citizens will find themselves housed in the Palestinian state under these proposals, something that no Israeli government will agree to.

If Obama intended to make a speech about Middle East policy that was designed not to have any impact on the region at all, he has done a good job. It is not inconceivable that the president resigned himself to making a keynote speech to try to silence those who have criticised his lack of attention to this important issue, while realising that he can do little or nothing to change the current impasse. The fact that he has yet to make a visit to Israel or the Palestinian Authority area almost three years into his presidency, is a clear indication of where this matter falls on his list of priorities.

If, however, Obama does genuinely intend to bring American policy and power to stop the UN vote in September and force the parties to a negotiated agreement, he will have to do a great deal better than this. For starters, he will need to show a much greater grasp and sensitivity to the main issues and red lines held by each party. The fact that special Middle East envoy George Mitchell has quietly resigned and slipped away without a successor, will also need to be fixed quickly.

Against this backdrop, it will be interesting to observe Prime Minister Netanyahu's address to both houses of congress on Tuesday in Washington. Netanyahu has come out fighting vigorously against Obama's 1967 borders, much to the joy of most Israelis across the political spectrum. He has also tried to maintain some semblance of professionalism with Obama in order not to alienate him to completely. This balance will be difficult to continue to achieve in the future.

If Netanyahu came to Washington expecting to get help from Obama to prevent the UN vote, he will feel sorely let down. It is clear that, short of supportive statements, the Americans are either unwilling or unable to bring their influence to bear on Middle Eastern politics at the current time. This is a real shame because the parties have really been looking to the US to engineer the breakthrough that could bring peace to the region. Unfortunately, with the current policy and level of involvement of the USA government in Middle Eastern issues, a vote at the UN in September looks unavoidable.

Obama's Take Two - Again

US President Barack Obama recently found it necessary to issue a special invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for him to return to the White House for a" charm offensive". This was required due to the persistent negative press about Obama's treatment of Netanyahu during his previous visit to Washington. This epitomises the treatment that Obama has dished out to Israel since becoming president nearly 18 months ago. His first attempts have been derogatory to say the least. He was then forced to make a second attempt to fix the damage done. This fact has not gone unnoticed by the Israeli public who interpret his first action as the one which comes most naturally. Somehow, the attempts to fix the problem feel more contrived and less heart-felt when they eventually come.

During his presidency to date, Obama has visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq in the Middle East. He made sure that his "keynote address" on Middle East policy was delivered in Cairo. Despite the fact that Israel remains the USA's most important ally in the Middle East, and the only democracy in the region, Obama has made an obvious point of not visiting Israel. What can be deduced from this behaviour? Even though he has spent some considerable time in dealing with Middle East issues, and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in particular, it sends a clear message to Israel when the US president does not find the time to pay Israel a personal visit. His predecessors made it their business to publicly be seen visiting Israel, so why is Obama so eager to avoid such a public display?

The truth is that the necessity to revisit his relationship with Netanyahu is only one example of Obama having to admit having done the wrong thing in relation to Israel at the first attempt. It was only a few months ago that Obama was forced to admit that his approach in dealing with the Middle East was mistaken, and that his administration was forced to change the way in which this was being handled. He admitted that he could not impose a settlement on Israel, that Israel is a sovereign nation and the notion that he could impose a settlement was simply wrong. What was he thinking when he considered the possibility of imposing a settlement on Israel? And why did he think that admitting such a ridiculous thought would be ok? The insult that he dished out to Israel in the process was only slighlty less than the damage done to his own standing by admitting that he had held this view. We have only seen the tip of the damage done, both to his Middle East policy and to his personal standing.

I cannot help but feel that this is not a series of innocent mistakes. It seems more like a natural instinct that he is finding hard to suppress when dealing with Israel. Having allowed his first reaction to come to the fore, he is forced to eat humble pie by admitting to his mistake, and trying to make good the damage caused. Unfortunately, his mistakes are too frequent and too consistent. When he should be affording Israel some respect, he is found to be critical and derogatory towards her. When he should be holding the feet of Israel's Arab enemies to the fire, he is found to be too cosy with them, and too accommodating of their behaviour.

The Israeli public seems to have been quick to pick up on this fact. In a poll published in the "Jerusalem Post" on Friday, it became all too apparent how optimistic Israelis were when he was first elected, and how this optimism has completed disappeared. At first, Israelis were caught up with the positive euphoria that swept the USA after the election of the first African American president. In a poll in May 2009, no fewer than 31% of Israelis felt that Obama was pro-Israel while 14% felt he was pro-Palestinian. By June 2009, the views of Israelis had changed dramatically to reflect only 6% believing that he was pro-Israel and 50% viewing him as pro-Palestinian. Now, after his charm offensive with Netanyahu and his first interview with an Israeli TV station since his arrival at the White House, the same poll shows 10% of Israelis seeing him as pr0-Israel and 46% as pro-Palestinian. This may "only" be a public opinion poll with no real effect on the political landscape, but these are the same people who will be voting in the next Israeli general election. A candidate who is seen to be too close with a US president viewed as anti-Israel is likely to suffer at the polls.

At best, Obama's mixed messages and amateurish behaviour with respect to the Middle East can be viewed as naive and poorly considered. For somebody, however, who is such an expert at ensuring that his messages have the correct spin for public consumption, his actions seem to be more than unintentional errors. While I have no evidence to support some of the conspiracy theories that circulate about Obama's Muslim ancestry and a hidden agenda on the part of the US president to promote Muslim interests in the Middle East (at the expense of the Jews), it is difficult to understand what Obama is trying to achieve in the region. I was recently reminded that Islam is handed down through the paternal line, and that Obama's father was a Muslim. Obama has, of course, made a point of reinforcing his Christian faith at every possible photo opportunity. From a Muslim perspective, however, this does not deny that he is a Muslim - it simply makes him a bad Muslim.

It is clear that Obama had a huge job on his hands to convert the euphoria and enormous hope that rested on his shoulders at the time of his election into actions that would satisfy his electorate and the world at large. It could be argued that the expectations were so high, that he had no chance of fulfilling them. When it comes to his Middle East policy, however, his efforts have been abysmal. The work done so far, and the damage with it, seems to be too large to overcome. It is my view that, irrespective of what he may achieve in the Middle East during the remainder of his time in the White House, nothing will be enough to recover from his poor start. I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

What About the Pollard Case Do I Not Understand?

Jonathan Pollard is the American Naval civilian intelligence analyst who was jailed for spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987 with a recommendation against parole. Now, 22 years later, Pollard continues to languish in jail despite numerous attempts at very senior levels to free him. Criminals in the US who receive life sentences are generally freed on parole long before they have served 22 years in jail. So, what have I missed? Why does the American government insist upon keeping Pollard imprisoned?

I am able to accept the fact that Pollard committed a crime which deserved some sort of punishment. In his role as an intelligence analyst, he was expected to respect the rules under which he was engaged. Even though, as an Israeli, I appreciate his efforts to assist Israel, it is clear to most concerned that he transgressed his security clearance. This is despite the claims that the information that he passed to Israel was information that Israel was entitled to receive. It is also despite the fact that Israel is not considered to be an enemy nation to the USA. I believe that there can be little doubt that Pollard passed information to Israel that he knew he should not have passed. He was caught, and was deserving of a punishment commensurate with the crime.

Instead, the Pollard case is riddled with strange and unexplainable facts that would seem to have prevented him from serving his time, and being released to continue to live his life. Despite the fact that he betrayed his employers and broke the law, he can hardly be regarded as a common criminal who represents a danger to American society.

I have many unanswered questions about this case:

• why did the American government not stick to the terms of the plea bargain?
• what is contained in the various documents submitted by Caspar Weinberger to the courts regarding the case?
• why did Clinton not stick to his promise to release Pollard during his term as President?
• why would Bush not consider this?
• why did it take the Israeli government so long to take responsibility for the man who acted on ideological grounds to assist the State of Israel?

These represent only a very small subset of the numerous unanswered questions on this case. There are so many others that contribute to the intrigue and seeming injustice that surrounds this case.

I call upon the Israeli and American governments to do all that they can to free Pollard from prison. It is up to us to ensure that the name of Jonathan Pollard is not forgotten and remains in the news every day.

Please visit the Justice for Jonathan Pollard website. For more facts about the case, please click here.

She'll be Back

With less than a week to go until the 2008 US presidential election, the polls are currently pointing to a comfortable victory for Barack Obama over John McCain. The latest gap between the candidates is shown to be fairly large in view of the very close-run campaign thus far.

From the perspective of an outsider, it seems that Obama is not leading as much as McCain is trailing. Obama has played a safe game and made sure that he has not made any mistakes. His campaign appears to have been sure-footed and error-free without being startling in any respect. It seems that, instead of offering voters reasons to vote for him, he has offered them reasons why not to vote for his competitor.

From the external view, it appears as though factors beyond the control of the candidates will ultimately be the difference between them. The credit crunch and ensuing finanical crisis has damaged John McCain more than Barack Obama. It is my conclusion that this will probably be factor that gives Obama the White House ahead of McCain.

Each candidate's vice presidential running mate has made for some interesting analysis. In keeping with his "safe and steady" campaign, Obama selected Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. In truth, he has hardly been visable in the campaign coverage as the Democrats do all that they can to focus on Obama. In stark contrast, McCain chose Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. She has enjoyed a great deal of media coverage, not all positive. She has contributed to McCain's campaign remaining highly visible in the media at all times.

Despite the obvious disadvantages that she comes with and the mistakes that she has made, Sarah Palin has made a positive impression on me. I like her feisty style and determination to continue with her job to the best of her ability despite many trying to trip her up and find another negative headline to write about her. True, she is highly inexperienced on the national and international stage. True, her teenage daughter's pregnancy could not have come at a more inconvenient moment for he mother's vice-presidential hopes. True, it did not help her when it was revealed that she was spending $10,000 a month of campaign funds on her clothing and beauty treatments. But she has still provided the best entertainment and has been a breath of fresh air in an otherwise very boring campaign. Her name is today internationally recognised whereas 3 months ago, nobody beyond the borders of Alaska had heard of her.

Once the campaign has been fought and lost, I find it difficult to believe that Sarah Palin will simply retire to the Governor's residence in Anchorage and go back to what she used to do. I think that we will hear more from this interesting lady in the future, no matter what the outcome of the 2008 election will be. I think that she has it in her to go back to the drawing board and to evaluate her strengths and weaknesses in light of her experiences over the past few months. She may know little about international diplomacy today, but she has plenty of time to learn what she is lacking. After all, at only 44 years old, she could easily go through an extended learning process and still be running in an election 20 years from now.

I think that we will see a lot more of this lady and, who knows, she may even break the ultimate glass ceiling in the USA and be the first lady to occupy the Oval Office. Watch out for Sarah Palin - she'll be back!