Sen. Obama in the Middle East, Part II (The “Special Relationship”)
In Sderot, Senator Obama was admirably unequivocal about Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas. “I can assure you, if someone was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”
And, as most American politicians do, Sen. Obama stressed the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel, and said he would work to make it stronger.
In Sderot, Senator Obama was admirably unequivocal about Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas. “I can assure you, if someone was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”
And, as most American politicians do, Sen. Obama stressed the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel, and said he would work to make it stronger.
The two are related. It is morally uncomplicated to assert Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas, a terrorist organization that is open about its devotion to the destruction of Israel and the liberation of Palestine (Jordan and Israel) by force of arms. It requires no assistance from the United States either. The real “special relationship” isn’t in support for Israeli action against agreed-upon enemies – Hamas or Iran, or the North Korean/Syrian reactor. It is in the broad American understanding that Israel has enemies that seek its destruction, in security cooperation to meet the threats, and in the commitment that only the Government of Israel has the right to decide how much security the Israeli public needs and how to provide it, even when the Administration doesn’t agree with the decision.
The “special relationship” is about not substituting American judgment for Israeli judgment on issues of security.
President Bush used to understand. He refused to meet with Arafat, declined to intervene in the Gaza Disengagement and supported Israel (including resupply) during the invasion of Lebanon. The administration has said little about Israeli military operations on the West Bank against Hamas and Fatah’s al-Aksa Martyr’s Brigades. On the other hand, it complains about roadblocks as if they have nothing to do with security. It is complicated, but where you need a “special relationship” is precisely in those complicated areas.
So what about Sen. Obama? He said, “The… special relationship… obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction.” So, no Hamas; but who decides which camp Abu Mazen/Fatah fall into on which day? “We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.” All good.
On the other hand, “We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.” Now it gets complicated. Sen. Obama has announced his determination to cancel and slow the American missile defense program. How do you proceed with Israeli missile defense but not American?
Sen. Obama’s best thought might have been, “We don’t need a peace deal just to have a piece of paper…We need something that is meaningful, and it’s not going to be meaningful if Israel’s security is not part of that package.” If he can just connect that with the idea that Israel’s security parameters have to be determined by the Israeli government, we might have a “special relationship.”