For decades, the bedrock of the relationship between the United States and Israel has been an unbreakable bond built on trust and a mutual respect for the ideals and practices of democracy. Surrounded by enemies on all sides, Israel has always known it could rely on its powerful ally to support and stand with it in times of need. Similarly, in dealing with a region characterized by strife and turmoil, the U.S. has always known it could rely on its sole democratic ally in the Middle East.
In recent weeks there have been troubling signs of a drastic change in U.S. policy toward Israel. Unwritten understandings between the two nations that have been honored for years are suddenly being questioned and even rebuffed by the U.S.
These policy changes are not mere political posturing. In fact, in a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, former UN ambassador John Bolton went so far as to say: “For the remainder of Mr. Obama’s term, uncertainty about his administration’s support for Israel will continue to dog Israeli governments and complicate their calculations.”
American Jewry and the Israeli government must view these changes for what they are; namely, statements made and actions taken by the U.S. that undermine Israel’s standing in the international community and that place Israelis at risk of attack by those seeking to destroy them.
The implementation of these policies may jeopardize a relationship rooted in more than a half-century of history. More important, these policies will adversely affect Israel’s security and may lead not to peace but rather to further conflict.
By publicly and steadfastly insisting that Israel cease construction of settlements in Judea and Samaria, the Obama administration is in essence turning a blind eye to Israel’s population growth and its increased housing needs. What are Israelis supposed to do? Should they stop having children because they can no longer add bedrooms to their homes? Are they to stop educating their children because they can no longer build much-needed schools?
In addition, the U.S. is haphazardly dismissing the importance of the settlements as the first line of defense against terror attacks aimed at innocent Israeli citizens. Israel’s ceding control of Judea and Samaria – land it won in a defensive military action – would enable Arab terrorists to settle in close proximity to Israeli cities and facilitate a new round of deadly terrorist attacks. One need only look at the Gaza experience for proof the land-for-peace concept does not work.
The U.S. must recognize that the term “settlements” is a misnomer. In many instances these are full-blown cities that tens of thousands of residents call home. Requiring Israel to empty entire cities is impracticable and immoral. The total population of these “settlements” in Judea and Samaria is approximately 300,000, which represents nearly five percent of the total population of Israel.
One cannot honestly believe that five percent of Israel’s population can simply be transplanted elsewhere. If five percent of America’s population were displaced, it would be equivalent to requiring most of the population of New York State to pick up and move.
Both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made it very clear that the U.S. does not accept the legitimacy of Israeli settlements and that they want Israel to halt all construction – whether new settlements or “natural growth exceptions.”
This sudden and shocking reversal in U.S. policy stunned Israeli leaders, and, not surprisingly, was warmly embraced and endorsed by the Arab world. If the U.S. does in fact issue an ultimatum to Israel on the issue of settlements, it will unfairly and unnecessarily put Israel in an incredibly difficult and tenuous position.
Obama has said the U.S. will not dictate to other nations what to do and how to act. Why should Israel be treated any differently in that regard?
Another issue that warrants close examination is the Obama administration’s decision to recant a statement and position used repeatedly by President Bush, which explicitly states that “[m]y Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our Embassy to Jerusalem.”
For the past ten years, the president of the United States has issued a bi-annual memo to the secretary of state entitled the “Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act.” This reaffirmation of Washington’s commitment to moving the American Embassy in Israel from its current Tel Aviv location to Jerusalem was required in order to defer implementation of the law. Suddenly, and without warning, the Obama administration deleted that critical line which in the past had declared the intent of the U.S. to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem.