by Caroline B. Glick
On Wednesday night, Israelis received our first taste of the new Middle East  with the missile strikes on Beersheba. Iran’s Palestinian proxy, the local  branch of the Muslim Brotherhood known as Hamas, carried out its latest war  crime right after Iran’s battleships entered Syria’s Latakia port.
Their  voyage through the Suez Canal to Syria was an unadulterated triumph for the  mullahs.
For the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s  warships sailed across the canal without even being inspected by the Egyptian,  US or Israeli navies.
On the diplomatic front, the Iranian-dominated new  Middle East has had a pronounced impact on the Western-backed Fatah-led  Palestinian Authority’s political posture towards the US.
The PA picked a  fight with America just after the Obama administration forced Egyptian President  Hosni Mubarak to surrender power.
Mubarak’s departure was a strategic  victory for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and for its sister branch Hamas in  Gaza.
As part of his efforts to neutralize the threat the Muslim  Brotherhood posed to his regime, Mubarak sealed off Gaza’s border with Egypt  after Hamas seized power there in June 2007.
The Gaza-Sinai border was  breached during last month’s revolution. Since Mubarak’s forced resignation, the  military junta now leading Egypt has failed to reseal it.
The revolution  in Egypt happened just after the PA was thrown into a state of disarray. Al-  Jazeera’s exposure of PA documents indicating the leadership’s willingness to  make minor compromises with Israel in the framework of a peace deal served to  discredit Fatah leaders in the eyes of the Israel-hating Palestinian  public.
In the wake of the Al-Jazeera revelations, senior PA leaders  escalated their anti-Israel and anti- American pronouncements. The PA’s chief  negotiator Saeb Erekat was forced to resign.
The shift in the regional  power balance following Mubarak’s fall has caused Fatah leaders to view their  ties to the US as a strategic liability.
If they wish to survive, they  must cut a deal with Hamas. And to convince Hamas to cut a deal, they need to  abandon the US.
And so they have. Fatah’s first significant move to part  company with Washington came with its relentless bid to force a vote on a  resolution condemning Israeli construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria at  the UN Security Council. In an attempt to avert a vote on the resolution that  the US public expected him to veto, Obama spent 50 minutes on the phone with  Mahmoud Abbas begging him to set the resolution aside. Obama promised to take  unprecedented steps against Israel in return for Abbas’s agreement to stand  down. But Abbas rejected his appeal.
Not only did Abbas defy the wishes  of the most pro-Palestinian president ever to occupy the White House, Abbas told  the whole world about how he defied Obama.
Abbas’s humiliation of Obama  was only the first volley in the Fatah leader’s campaign against the US. Abbas,  Salam Fayyad and their PA ministers have sent paid demonstrators into the street  to protest against America. They announced a boycott of American diplomats and  journalists. They have called for a boycott of American products. They have  scheduled a “Day of Rage” against America for Friday after mosque  prayers.
While excoriating Obama and the US, the PA is actively wooing  Hamas. On Wednesday, the PA accepted the legitimacy of Hamas control over Gaza.  Three-and-a-half years after Hamas wrested control over Gaza from Fatah in a  bloody coup, on Wednesday Fayyad said that the PA is willing to end its  objection to Hamas control over the area if Hamas agrees to participate in the  general elections Abbas has scheduled for September.
At the same time as  he publicly beseeched Hamas to join forces with Fatah, Fayyad announced that the  PA is willing to forgo US financial assistance if that assistance continues to  come with political strings attached. The only real string attached to US aid is  the stipulation that no US financial assistance can be used to finance  Hamas.
THE PA’S announced willingness to end its receipt of US aid is by  far its boldest move to date. With the Arab world going up in smoke, Fatah  officials know they cannot expect to receive any significant funding from Arab  states for the foreseeable future. That makes them entirely dependent on US and  Europe.
And make no mistake, the PA budget is entirely a creation of  foreign aid. The PA is the largest foreign aid recipient in the world. Last  year, it received $1.8 billion in foreign assistance.
US direct  assistance accounted for $550 million, or nearly a third of that amount. The US  gave the PA another $268m. in indirect assistance through UNRWA. UNRWA is the UN  agency devoted exclusively to providing welfare benefits to the Palestinians  while subordinating itself to the Palestinian political agenda.
Without  US assistance, the PA would cease to be a political factor in the region. So by  offering to forgo the aid, Fayyad, Abbas and their colleagues are essentially  threatening to commit political suicide.
The Palestinians’ declared  readiness to forgo US aid is all the more remarkable when compared to Israel’s  refusal to countenance the thought of forgoing or even cutting back the  assistance it receives from the US. Whereas the Palestinian economy will  collapse without US assistance, were Israel to forgo the $3b. in military  assistance it receives every year from Washington, the move would have little  impact on the economy.
Economic analyses of US military assistance have  noted that several factors degrade the value of the aid. The US requires Israel  to spend 75 percent of the assistance in the US. Israel’s inability to open its  purchases to competitive bidding in the world market has forced it to pay  inflated prices for much of what it buys.
So, too, by buying US weapons  systems, Israel has harmed its own military industries, which are blocked from  selling or developing systems for the IDF contractors.
Moreover, because  the US has tied its aid to Egypt to its aid to Israel and justified its military  aid to Jordan and Lebanon through its military assistance to Israel, by  accepting the aid, Israel is enabling its neighbors to upgrade their military  capabilities. Their upgraded military capabilities in turn force Israel to  invest still more resources in its defense budget to maintain its qualitative  edge against its US subsidized neighbors.
With all the hidden costs the  military assistance entails, it is reasonable to discount the actual value of  the aid by 50%. That is, the actual value of annual US military assistance is  about $1.5b.
The direct military cost of the Second Lebanon War is  estimated at $2.2b. The direct military cost of Operation Cast Lead is estimated  at $1.4b. The actual costs of both wars to the Israeli economy were several  times higher.
Those who claim that Israel cannot manage without US  military aid ignore the fact that neither of these wars had any discernible  impact on the economy.
The political cost Israel has paid for US military  assistance has been astronomical. As a recent study of US military assistance by  the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies demonstrated, the psychological  impact of the US aid on Israeli and American leaders alike has had a disastrous  impact on the relations between the two states and impaired their ability to  understand the actual strategic rationale of their alliance. Israeli leaders  have developed a subservient mentality towards the Americans and the Americans  have forgotten that a strong Israel is the US’s most valuable strategic asset in  the region.
THE PALESTINIANS’ expressed willingness to forgo their  assistance from the US is no doubt a bluff. And Congress would do well to call  their bluff and cancel US assistance to the PA.
Yet their behavior  presents Israel with an important lesson about the fundamentals of diplomacy  that appear lost on our leaders.
The Palestinians understand the rules of  diplomacy far better than Israel does. Israel believes that diplomacy is about  getting other governments to be nice to us. Palestinians understand that  diplomacy is a nonviolent means of weakening your enemies and expanding your own  power. They also understand that the starting point for any effective diplomatic  strategy is a reality-based assessment of other government’s  interests.
As the revolutions throughout the region show, in the real  world, the Arabs do not care about the Palestinians. Europeans and leftist  Americans care about the Palestinians. European leaders need to support the  Palestinians for domestic political reasons. US leaders support the Palestinians  to maintain good relations with Europe and with the American  Left.
Recognizing this, the likes of Abbas and Fayyad understand that no  matter what they say or do, the West will probably not abandon them. Europeans  need them to continue carrying out their political war against Israel because  that is what their constituents demand. US leaders will continue to support them  because they follow Europe’s lead.
On the other hand, given their  newfound power, PA leaders have to bend over backwards to appease Hamas and Iran  if they wish to survive.
Since they rightly assess that the West needs  them more than they need the West, not only are the Palestinians unwilling to  pay any price for maintaining Western support for them.
They are willing  to initiate ugly confrontations with the US and humiliate Obama in order to win  the approval of Hamas and Iran.
Facing this reality, Israel’s best bet is  to initiate a few confrontations of its own to demonstrate its strategic  importance to the US and Europe.
With the conflagrations raging in the  Arab world essentially making its argument that a strong Israel is imperative  for the West, Israel should be going on the offensive against the Palestinians  and the international Left that supports them.
But instead of pointing  out the truth, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his colleagues maintain  their posture as supplicants to Washington, making concession after concession  in exchange for further abuse in the hopes of avoiding a  confrontation.
For instance, Netanyahu has defied his own party and  broken his word to the public by maintaining an undeclared freeze on Jewish  building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Since January 2010, Netanyahu has  systematically denied Jews building permits in the area in the hopes of  appeasing Obama.
And how has Obama repaid Israel for our government’s  willingness to deny Jews their civil rights? The Obama administration has  branded all Jewish communities in post-1967 Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as  “illegitimate,” and blamed Israel for the absence of peace in the  region.
As our region is consumed by the flames of rebellion and  revolution, the challenges and threats Israel faces multiply by the day. In  these new and trying times, our leaders must shed their failed concepts of  statecraft based on weakness and adopt new ones founded on strength. The PA is  playing a bad hand wisely.
We are playing a good hand  foolishly.
Caroline B. Glick
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
 
No comments:
Post a Comment