Leading Pro-Israel Activists Up the Garden Path
AIPAC’s annual convention is a time of year when politicians put their best foot forward regarding their stance on Israel. That’s to be expected and there’s nothing wrong with that. But despite strong positive support at AIPAC from a wide variety of politicians across the political spectrum, there were a number of concerning misstatements made, particularly by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Both made numerous figurative statements supportive of Israel, but when it came to hard facts and real action, it proved to be quite the opposite.
Secretary Clinton suggested that the Obama Administration had, “lead the boycott of the Durban Conference.” In the sense that “to lead” means to go first and encourage others to follow, that distinction belongs to the Canadian government. Canada announced its decision to boycott the Durban Review Conference for its likely anti-Israel bias and anti-Semitism in January of 2008, even before the official Israel decision to do so. By comparison, the U.S State Department made several efforts to work within the U.N system regarding the Durban II conference, before finally making the decision that the conference was irredeemable, and announcing its finally decision to boycott on April 18th, 2009. Australia, Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and Poland, made the same decision around that time This is not to nitpick Secretary Clinton’s statement, but rather to illustrate that under the Obama administration, principled stands regarding Israel have taken a back seat to consensus diplomacy. A presidential administration which requires the political cover of New Zealand and Sweden in order to support its Israeli ally is not one which would meet most AIPAC attendees’ desire for a close U.S-Israeli relationship.
Secretary Clinton also once again brought to the forefront of the discussion the recent split with Israel over Housing construction in Jerusalem when she said,
“New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines that mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides say want and need. And it exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region hope to exploit. It undermines America’s unique ability to play a role – an essential role – in the peace process.”
This statement is interesting for two reasons. The first, because it ignores that it was the Obama Administration, not Israel, which injected the question of building in East Jerusalem into the equation.
In 2009, the Obama administration had acquired an agreement from the Netanyahu government to a moratorium on building in the West bank, but explicitly excluding East Jerusalem. In what way does it undermine “mutual trust” if the Israeli government proceeds to do exactly what it had agreed to do at the request of the Obama Administration? Second, it ignores statements which have indicated that the creation of distance may very well be intentional. According to the Los Angeles Times in July 2009, (H/T Israel Matzav) President Obama who was reported to have told American Jewish leaders that,
“Public disagreements between the U.S. government and Israel are useful in the pursuit of Middle East peace.”
It seems highly disingenuous that the Secretary of State should lay on Israel the creation of “daylight” between the two nations, when that very distance was apparently endorsed as a strategy by the Commander and Chief himself nine months ago.
Secretary Clinton’s endorsement of the “demographic problem”, which proclaims that Israel has no choice but to acquiesce to Palestinian demands, because it is losing a demographic battle, does not represent an error in the secretary’s speech as much as an endorsement of common knowledge which happens to be wrong.
The demographic argument that Israel will be overrun requires taking at face value heavily politicized Palestinian projections of their population growth rate. The Palestinians have claimed an improbable 30% population growth rate from 1997 to 2008, with a West Bank population of 2.3 million. By comparison a January 2010 article by Yoram Ettinger puts the actual Palestinian West Bank Population at, “1.55 million and not 2.5 million, as claimed by the PA.”
Why should we accept Israeli figures over Palestinian figures? Only because the Palestinians have explicitly stated that they view the census as a political strategy for defeating Israel. In the 1997, the director of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics told The New York Times, “In my opinion, [the data] is as important as the intifada. It is a civil intifada.”
Clinton’s speech contained other problems as well. Speaking about the Obama Administration’s efforts to “to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge,” Secretary Clinton said the administration had provided nearly $3 billion in annual military assistance, always a corner stone of the AIPAC agenda. What then to make of a recent report that claims a virtual “embargo” has been placed on Israel, preventing it from acquiring Bunker-busting bombs, AH-64D Apache helicopters and advanced systems for the FA-15E fighter. These concerns were echoed in a report by the Times of London. Whether the details of this report which admittedly relies on anonymous military and congressional sources are accurate or not, it seems to reflect a feeling on the Israeli side that their qualitative edge is in risk. A Haaretz article written in January of this year expressed concerned about recent arms sales to Arab nations saying, “According to the Pentagon report to Congress, no arms deals with Israel have taken place since President Barack Obama took office.” Haaretz also reported in August of 2008 that the Obama Administration had declined to provide military equipment if it could be used to strike Iran, although Israeli sources later disputed the characterization of linkage between arms sales and Iran.
Perhaps the most egregious error was Secretary Clinton’s reference to the naming of Dalal Mughrabi Square, which Clinton characterized as, “When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones over the years in this conflict.” In point of fact, Dalal Mughrabi square was named in a ceremony by the Fatah Party, NOT by Hamas, although it is true that Hamas controls the city council in the area. Also, apparently the family of Dalal Mughrabi didn’t feel “insulted,” since Mughrabi’s sister was featured on Palestinian Authority TV, calling the naming ceremony, “a day of glory and pride.”
This misattribution to Hamas of Fatah’s misdeeds is unfortunately typical of an Administration which has ignored Fatah and Palestinian Authority incitement in order to characterize it as a peace partner. It is true; incidentally, that Hamas named a field in Gaza City after Dalal Mughrabi, since Hamas is not one to let Fatah outmaneuver them when it comes to anti-Israeli rhetoric.
In regards to Iran, Secretary Clinton’s remarks earned applause, but many were based on questionable interpretations of events. Clinton pointed to Russia as coming on board with international consensus on Iran, despite that during her visit the Russians announced they were moving ahead with the Iranian nuclear reactor at Bushehr. How can this be defined as a definite move towards a consensus on Iranian nuclear behavior?
Also related to Iran, Secretary Clinton said the aim of the Obama Administration was seeking not “incremental sanctions, but biting sanctions.” Yet during debate over the Iran refined petroleum sanctions act, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg weighed in favor of less “biting” sanctions in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Sen. Kerry worked closely with the Obama administration to slow the progress of the sanctions bill, while seeking to avoid lowering thresholds which would trigger sanctions on companies doing business with Iran, and avoid “blacklisting”, which would require that the Administration announce which companies were in violation of the bill’s statue, a growing concern since a New York Times report which indicated that U.S Government grants and funds were going to companies with business in Iran. Additionally, although both the House and Senate versions of the senate bills are now passed, they await a conference committee, while the Obama Administration is softening its sanctions position at the United Nations.
Perhaps the most disturbing misstatement was not made by Secretary Clinton however, but by Former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair echoed some of Secretary Clinton’s remarks which sounded very positive but were not necessarily reflective of action, and made at least one disturbing misstatement of fact.
Blair told the AIPAC audience, “The tragedy for the Palestinians is that the penalty for the extremism of the few is paid by the many in checkpoints, searches, permits, demolitions and security measures that are often heavy and sometimes oppressive. Then they see that though they cannot build in Area C, which still constitutes 60% of the West Bank, settlement expansion continues in disputed territory.”
It is blatantly false that Palestinians cannot build in Area C, which consists of East Jerusalem, the Judean Desert, and parts of the Jordan Valley. Palestinians can build in East Jerusalem with the appropriate permits (Israelis must also have permits to build). Israel has routinely granted equal numbers of permits between Arabs and Jews, (From 1967 to 1997, the number of flats in the Arab sector increased by 122%, compared to 113% for Jewish flats.) While it is true that Israel demolishes illegal non-permitted housing in Area C, this is true for both Arabs and Israelis alike. From 1996 to 1998 there were a total of 65 demolitions of illegal construction in Jerusalem. 35 were Arab, and 30 were Jewish. Even Pro-Palestinian propaganda acknowledges that Palestinians can build in these areas with permits, since it is routine to accuse the Israeli government of being slow to provide permits, although the Israeli authorities stress that those who request permits will receive them.
Indeed this is part of what is most disturbing about the pressure against Israeli building in East Jerusalem. It requires that the Israeli government prevent Jews from building homes in Israel’s capital, while at the same time criticizing them for not providing enough building permits for non-Jews.
Further as the representative of the Quartet, former Prime Minister Blair should know better. And that is what is so distressing about the remarks made by Secretary Clinton and Prime Minister Blair. Statements like these which distances the U.S from Israel, which hides the reality of P.A incitement, which mischaracterizes facts on the ground, become fodder for future Palestinian incitement, and further demands, none of which bodes well for future peace.
I think this is an excellent article. Still, three points.
First, I think Hillary was purposely making an abstract argument when stating that families on both sides who have lost loved ones. So, while it is a good point to mention the pride the sister expressed as a disturbing fact, it doesn’t relate to Hillary’s point.
Second, one columnist argued in either the New York Times or Washington Post that there had been a back-channel commitment by the current Israeli government not to build in East Jerusalem. If that were true, that would explain the administration’s response. Is it?
Third, and most important, is the reliance on Yoram Ettinger’s numbers. While Palestinian numbers are clearly suspect, what makes his numbers any more accurate? This is a critical issue and decisions are being influenced by the numbers being used. More needs to be explained on this point to be persuasive to me.
Those are fair points Paul.
As regards Sec. Clinton’s statement regarding losses on both sides, it is an abstract point she is making, but to me it seems to be a point of moral equivalence. “Both sides” have lost loved ones, and it is terrible. True. The problem is, as the point regarding Mughrabi’s sister was meant to illustrate, on one side, the loss of life is seen as a tragic, while on the other side “Martyrs” are all too often celebrated by their families, rather than mourned. This is a fundamental problem to making peace, and it does not help for the Secretary of State to ignore it.
I had not seen the article in the New York Times or Washington Post, but articles following the original announcement of the West Bank settlement freeze explicitly mention that East Jerusalem was not include, and quote Palestinian leadership as saying the freeze agreement was unacceptable because it did not include East Jerusalem. If there was therefore, a back channel agreement not to build in East Jerusalem, why were the Palestinians not told about it? It serves no purpose if they are unaware of it. If however, it existed, and they are aware of it, why would they pretend otherwise? If you did find the article in question, I would be interested to see how they reach their conclusion however as it might show some light on the subject.
Your third point regards Yoram Ettinger’s demographic calculations. While I’m not competent to get into specifics of demographic calculation, and won’t even try, I do know that for part of the methology Yoram utilizes Palestinian figures, and then weeds out numbers that have been improperly included, such as including Palestinians that do not in fact live in the territories (live overseas) and the failure to account for emigration of Palestinians from the territories, even though those figures are available. If you’d like to look more at Ettinger’s figures, He doesn’t seem to maintain his old website, but a google search of Yoram Ettinger+Demographics brings up a number of relevant articles regarding how he reached this conclusion.