by Dror Eydar
A recently released 2010 email from Martin Indyk to Hillary Clinton reveals a great deal about the Americans' misguided approach toward Israel and its leader • Five years later, it is clear how wrong the Obama administration's approach actually was.
Former U.S. Ambassador to
Israel Martin Indyk
|
Photo credit: KOKO  |
1. In September 2010, Martin Indyk arrived in
Israel and the Palestinian Authority for a quick visit. Indyk, a former
U.S. ambassador to Israel, acted as a mediator in the peace talks
between Israel and the Palestinians, and as such, did not spare Israel
his sharp criticism. Much like many of his fellow Jewish-American
left-wingers (and Israeli left-wingers too), Indyk believes that Israel
is to blame for the failure of the peace talks.
After his 2010 visit, Indyk sent
then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton a report on his trip via
email. This email, together with thousands of others, was made public
recently under a U.S. court order. This email doesn't reveal much about
the Israeli reality it seeks to describe (nothing that isn't readily
available in our local newspapers), but it reveals a great deal about
the American approach toward the hundred-year-old conflict between
Israelis and Palestinians, which is directly linked to the
1,400-year-old conflict between Jews and Muslims.
In his report, Indyk mentioned Israeli
politicians Dan Meridor and Tzipi Livni, from whom he learned about the
situation. He also spoke to then-Shin Bet security agency director Yuval
Diskin. (This is quite reminiscent of New York Times columnist Thomas
Friedman, who gets his insights on the Israeli situation from Yedioth
Ahronoth columnist Nahum Barnea.) Birds of a feather flock together, as
they say.
2. Indyk suggested that Clinton dwell on the
psychology of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than his
politics. He suggested that she "put [her] arms around Bibi" -- using
the prime minister's nickname -- and "nudge him forward." He proposed
further that Clinton "try to find a way to make him understand that his
negotiating tactics are counterproductive to his own purposes. The Obama
administration has done a great deal lately to underscore its concern
for Israel's security, from the vote at the IAEA, to the sanctions on
Iran, to the letter that [President Barack] Obama was willing to sign
that accepted Bibi's security requirements. That should buy you
credibility with him.
"As his friend, paint a realistic picture of
the strategic consequences of his negotiating tactics, particularly in
terms of what is likely to happen to the Palestinian Authority
leadership if he worries only about his politics and not at all about
[the Palestinian] politics," Indyk proposed.
Indyk suggested that if this patronizing
approach failed, and Netanyahu did not fall into the friendship trap in
the hope of winning a Nobel Peace Prize (which would have brought
nothing but war to Israel), that Clinton would "avoid recriminations"
because "the world will of course blame Bibi." Of course.
But, he said, it is important that the
"Israeli public and the American Jewish community know how far the
president was prepared to go and they should be allowed to draw their
own conclusions."
Well, in the five years that have passed since
Indyk wrote this email, no one allowed us to draw our own conclusions.
All the media figures and the PR gurus continuously drummed into our
heads -- loudly, so that we wouldn't miss a single syllable -- that
Israel, namely Netanyahu, was responsible for the failure of the peace
talks. Incidentally, this is exactly what they did to former Prime
Minister Ehud Barak -- they blamed him for the failure of Camp David in
the wake of the terrorism of the Second Intifada. It is a time-honored
tradition in our glorious history: to blame ourselves for the crimes of
our enemies.
Indyk pointed out two additional points with
which to pressure Israel: delegitimization of Israel's position in the
international community and the deteriorating relations between Israel
and the U.S. (In Indyk's own words: "Bibi needs President Obama in his
corner to deal with the threat from Iran and to avoid punishment by the
voters for mishandling relations with the U.S.")
In his remarks, Indyk misread both the Israeli
public, which responded to American pressure in a way that is the
direct opposite of what Indyk predicted, and Netanyahu, particularly
regarding Obama's refusal to cooperate with him on Iran. In retrospect,
these remarks reveal a great deal about the Obama administration's
attitude toward us.
3. The heart of Indyk's email can be found in his harsh criticism of Netanyahu's negotiating tactics.
"Believing that he is a great negotiator, and
that he is operating in the Middle East bazaar, he inflates his
requirements well beyond anything reasonable in the belief that this is
the best way to secure the highest price," Indyk writes. So? Isn't that
precisely how negotiations have been conducted in the Middle East for
5,000 years, even over the tiniest rug? But the world expects Israel to
act as though it is negotiating with Switzerland, not with Palestinian
Arabs.
"The process of bringing him down to a
reasonable price uses up a lot of energy, uses up a lot of good will,
humiliates his Palestinian negotiating partner, and raises doubts about
his seriousness," Indyk continues. And after all, why waste energy when
"in the end, under great pressure from all quarters, [Netanyahu] will
make the final concession." What a shame to waste all this time.
These things are nothing new to anyone who
reads the pearls of wisdom written by Israel's media stars. Judging by
their writings, Netanyahu has no ideology, no world view and no
historical perspective. His security demands are simply pawns in a game
of Middle East bazaar.
According to Indyk, Netanyahu's problem is
that "at heart, he seems to lack a generosity of spirit." What is wrong
with him? Why won't he do everyone a favor and concede the Jordan
Valley? And what about Samaria? The U.S. will promise not to let any
16-year-old lunatic fire missiles into Ben-Gurion Airport from there.
And Jerusalem? Netanyahu should take a page out of Ehud Barak's book --
is there really anything of any importance to hold on to in the Old City
of Jerusalem? And Palestinian refugees? What's the big deal? Just
absorb a hundred or a thousand. A million tops. Come on, why can't he be
more generous?
Only two years before this email, showing an
enormous "generosity of spirit," then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a slew of concessions
that included almost every last demand, but it wasn't enough for the
pragmatic partner. And why would it be, when he will always have
advocates like Martin Indyk to blame Israel for everything?
4. Indyk wrote these things just as the Middle
East was about to change forever and revert back to the old tribal
structure. It was just before the world came to know the Islamic State
group and the resurgence of religious wars and before the peoples in the
region began migrating to Europe. History has its own way of teaching
us humility. Indyk couldn't complete his criticism without compounding
it with the remark: "Thinking out of the box, as [Netanyahu] likes to
do, will only further delay the negotiations, because the box is already
well defined."
That is precisely what the Israeli Left has
been arguing all along: Everyone knows what the price will be and what
the final result of the negotiations will be, so why wait? Sure.
Everyone knows, except for the other party in the negotiations. The
Israeli Left has always been exceptional at negotiating with itself, and
at determining what will placate the Palestinians. Indyk's letter is
patronizing not only to us, but indirectly also to our Palestinian
partners/opponents, because it treats us all as pieces in a great big
American puzzle, a sort of game of peace.
Indyk added another comment that was about as
insightful as a shallow puddle: He suggested that Netanyahu possesses a
"legendary fear of being seen as a 'freier'" -- a very Israeli term
meaning "sucker." Indyk points to this fear as the reason for the
failure of the peace process. Never mind a century of disputes; never
mind decades of negotiations; never mind endless terrorism, it is
Netanyahu's fear of being a "freier" that is to blame. Unbelievable.
Whom did the Americans send over to mediate the talks?
Ultimately, the story is not Indyk. Indyk is just a
symptom of the Americans' psycho-political fixation, shared by a certain
part of the Israeli population as well. They are convinced that we are
still stuck in the 1980s, before all the great and dangerous experiments
we have been put through in these last decades. The upcoming Yom Kippur
day of atonement is a good time to take stock and come back down to
Earth from this fantastical diplomatic orbit. A good time to return to
the fundamental truths of Zionism. Gmar hatima tova.
Dror Eydar
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=28353
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment