Israel

The United States was badly outnumbered in the General Assembly. There were just 67 countries who could be said to be on “our side” in that they didn’t vote against our position. No, not this week’s vote on Jerusalem. This past week there were 8 countries with us voting no, 35 abstentions, and 21 no-shows, for a total of 65 on “our side.” No, I was referring to the General Assembly’s greatest disgrace, its 1975 vote deciding that “Zionism is a form of racism.” Then the vote was 72 in favor to 35 against, with 32 abstentions. So we had 67 on “our side” back then—but the UN membership was then 144 countries, about 50 lower than now. Otherwise put, the 1975 resolution was supported by about half the General Assembly membership, but this week’s vote was supported by two-thirds. Thus is moral progress measured at the United Nations. No major country voted “No” with the United States. Some abstained, starting with Canada and Australia. There was some good news, in that several European nations (Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia) also abstained. So also did some in this hemisphere (Canada was joined by Mexico, Argentina, Colombia, as well as several Central American and Caribbean nations). Israeli prime minister Netanyahu’s diplomatic efforts in Africa paid off to some degree: Togo voted no, while Rwanda, Malawi, Uganda, Lesotho, Equatorial Guinea and South Sudan abstained, and Kenya was absent. Of course, many of those voting against the United States, from Syria to Cuba, Russia to China, North Korea to Venezuela, are hostile regimes whose vote is predictable and morally worthless. Nevertheless, the list of countries supporting the resolution is remarkable: supposed American friends such as the UK, France, Italy, Germany, South Korea, Belgium, Greece, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Japan, and Denmark. Their vote was a gratuitous insult because this was a resolution in essence denouncing the United States, rather than the usual U.N. resolution against Israel. I well recall the 2005 cartoon controversy, when a Danish newspaper published a caricature of Mohammed and Denmark’s embassies were threatened across the globe. The Danish prime minister said this was Denmark's worst international relations incident since the Second World War. Denmark turned to the United States for help. We gave it. Gratitude appears to be a wasting asset. What would it have cost them all to abstain? The text includes for example this preambular language: “Bearing in mind the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for the protection and preservation of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the City….” This is odious because the United States obviously always bears this in mind, as does Israel—which in fact has protected the Old City and kept its religious sites open to all. Prior to 1967, Jordan despoiled Jewish religious sites there and prevented Jews from visiting them, a situation about which the United Nations never once protested—of course. But then we get to the meat, where the General Assembly resolution continues: “Expressing in this regard its deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem, “Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded….” Israel made no “recent decision;” only the United States did. And now we are told it “must be rescinded,” to which one can only reply with the famous words Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke in 1975 after the “Zionism is Racism” resolution passed: the United States “does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.” Some will argue that it is unfair to compare these two resolutions. I think not. Both continue the General Assembly’s record of infamous maltreatment of Israel. No other country has ever been singled out for abuse in such a manner, and now the United States is abused for the crime of acknowledging the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Only one nation on earth is not permitted to choose its capital, and the refusal to allow Israel that right is part and parcel of the delegitimization campaign against Israel of which this resolution is itself a part. Now what? The United States has said there will be a price to pay for insulting us in this way. Withholding aid is unlikely to be the way forward. There are too many cases where humanitarian aid is needed and there is no reason to punish desperately poor people because of a vote their rulers made. In other cases American security interests are too important. But there are ways to make our displeasure known, such as canceling or delaying the visit of a top-level American official, or the visit to the United States by a foreign official. Downgrading ties quite informally is also possible: some foreign minister comes, and finds that unaccountably the President, National Security Advisor, and Secretary of State are unavailable, and that the mid-level officials who are available have just a few minutes rather than the time requested. Requests that are too important to deny can be slowed down. A creative diplomat will find plenty of ways to show that we remember and resent this gratuitous insult to our country.                  

This week Kenya inaugurated a president (Uhuru Kenyatta, for his second term). One and only one Western head of government was present, joining ten African presidents. One and only one foreign leader was asked to speak at the celebratory lunch, while being seated next to Kenyatta. Who was that? Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And while in Nairobi for one day, Netanyahu met with the presidents of Rwanda, Gabon, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, South Sudan, Botswana, and Namibia, and the prime minister of Ethiopia. The prominence of Israel’s leader during this occasion would be worth mention even if he were one of a dozen Western leaders who were present—but he was alone. The British sent a second level minister handling foreign aid, for example, not even a Cabinet member. There are two points worth making. The first is that Israel is succeeding in an extraordinary campaign of outreach across the globe, to India and China, to Africa, and recently to Latin America. The second is that this is no automatic development, but a tribute to the energy, dedication, and perspicacity of Prime Minister Netanyahu. They aren’t just welcoming Israel; they are welcoming him. They are interested in his extraordinary country, obviously, but also in his personal understanding of economic change, of the role of military strength, and of world affairs. Similarly, in September 2016 Netanyahu was a hotter ticket at the UN General Assembly than even Barack Obama: more African leaders sought meetings with Netanyahu than with the President of the United States. Netanyahu’s critics are legion in Israel, but even they ought to be honest enough to acknowledge what he has achieved for his country in countering isolation, BDS, and anti-Semitism and greatly widening and deepening Israel’s global ties. And it has just been announced that Netanyahu has been invited to address all 28 EU foreign ministers at their December meeting. QED. 

It seems that John Kerry is a problem even out of office. Whether his record as secretary of state was one of glorious achievement or abject failure is of course a matter of debate; I lean to the latter view. But what he has done this week is less debatable: he has leaked other countries' secrets, for no reason other than self-aggrandizement. Here is a part of the Washington Post story: Former Secretary of State John Kerry says both Israel and Egypt pushed the United States to “bomb Iran” before the 2015 nuclear deal was struck. Kerry is defending the deal during a forum in Washington. He says kings and foreign presidents told the U.S. that bombing was the only language Iran would understand. But Kerry says that was “a trap” in many ways because the same countries would have publicly criticized the U.S. if it bombed. Kerry says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “genuinely agitating toward action.” He could have said "some countries" or "some leaders" but chose to state what was said to him in secret, privileged, private diplomatic conversations by named governments. And to do so about leaders who are still in office, such as Prime Minister Netanyahu. And he chose to do so in an offhand manner at a conference where his goal was merely to defend his own record in negotiating the JCPOA.  This is irresponsible behavior. It is the kind of conduct that tells foreign leaders they cannot trust our own leaders to protect private conversations, and suggests to them that candor is dangerous. When a secretary of state, who often boasted of his years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, behaves this way he deserves the kind of criticism that...Kerry is very unlikely to get.  Why not? Because people expect this kind of misconduct from him? Because he is out of office so he is free to spill secrets? Because "everyone knows" what Israel and Egypt were urging? These are all poor arguments. Kerry should acknowledge that he spoke too freely and state that he regrets his action. He owes both those governments an apology. And he should pledge to be far more careful in the future about revealing the content of conversations that should not be disclosed for decades--including, that is, not in Mr. Kerry's memoirs.   

There have been many signs that Saudi official attitudes toward Israel are changing, and today brought one of the strongest. As a headline in the Jerusalem Post put it, "In Possible Nod to Israel, Two Top Saudi Officials Visit Paris Synagogue." The article continues: In a historic first and possible nod to Israel, two top officials from Saudi Arabia – both former government ministers – visited a synagogue in Paris this week, The Jerusalem Post has learned. The officials were Secretary General of the Muslim World League Dr. Muhammad Abdul-Kareem al-Issa, a former Saudi justice minister, and Khalid bin Mohammed Al Angari, a former Saudi education minister who currently serves as Riyadh’s ambassador to France. Needless to say, neither man would conceivably have made this visit without official approval from Riyadh. This is a small step, of course; this is not Sadat visiting Jerusalem to speak to the Knesset, an event that happened almost exactly forty years ago (November 19, 1977). But it is not exactly nothing, either. It fits within a recent pattern that should be recognized and encouraged. As I've written before, it seems to me the Trump administration believes this will go further than I think it will. I think the Saudis are getting most of what they want from Israel in secret military and intelligence channels. I doubt they will take big risks by doing things in public that might bring significant attacks on them. But they will do some things, and this is a potentially important one. The late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia started a center on interfaith dialogue, announcing it at a United Nations session on religious tolerance in November 2008 that he and President Bush attended. This gives the current Saudi king and crown prince something to build on (and hide behind). Given the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe and globally in recent years, having the Saudis publicly demonstrate respect for Judaism is a helpful and useful step--for Israel and for Jews. Let's hope it is followed by more. If the Saudi ambassador to France can visit a synagogue, can the Saudi ambassador to Washington--who happens to be the King's son? Can the head of the World Muslim League issue a strong and clear denunciation of anti-Semitism and all religious hatred? Can the Saudis cleanse their textbooks of anti-Semitic material? Such steps seemed ridiculous not so long ago, but these are questions that may seriously be asked today--with at least some hope that in future years the answer might be yes. 

This past week the Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Force gave an interview to a Saudi news site, Elaph, and said Israel would be ready to share intelligence about Iran with Saudi Arabia. "We're willing to exchange information with the moderate Arab nations, including intelligence, in order to deal with Iran. We're willing to share information if the need arises. There are many shared interests between us and Saudi Arabia,” said Gen. Gadi Eizenkot. Elaph has been open to Israeli officials for several years, including interviews with generals, foreign ministry officials, and cabinet members. Still, no chief of staff of the army had ever spoken to them—and thus directly addressed Saudi readers. This event is a step forward in Israeli/Saudi relations, and the public discussion of intelligence sharing (which may be taking place in secret) is also an important step. The tone of Saudi official comments on Israel has certainly changed. Once upon a time Israel was the “Zionist entity” whose name was not even spoken. Now, the Saudi news station Al Arabiya handles Israel straightforwardly: for example, on November 15 it carried a Reuters story about Israel’s offer of help to earthquake victims in Iran. But let’s not go too far in interpreting what all this means. The Trump administration’s efforts to “fast-forward” Israeli/Saudi relations have not succeeded. As part of its efforts to promote an Israeli/Palestinian peace plan, there are reports that the administration asked the Saudis to do things like permitting overflights of Saudi Arabia by El Al and having some public meetings with Israeli officials. Israel would make concessions to the Palestinian Authority and freeze some settlement activity in exchange. The problem here is that the Saudis are right now getting the military and intelligence cooperation they appear to want from Israel—in secret. Public collaboration with Israel or concessions to it would be politically dangerous for the Saudi government, at a moment when to say the very least its plate is full. The last thing it would appear to need is more political controversy stirring up internal criticism and opposition. So the cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia will likely continue, and deepen, and signs of it will emerge from time to time—signs like the Eizenkot interview in Elaph. A great leap forward such as the groundbreaking Sadat visit to Jerusalem is highly unlikely, as are most public displays of official contacts. Elaph, after all, is a private news site; no Israeli officials have been interviewed by Al Arabiya. And flights from Israel to Asia continue to take long routes that must skirt Saudi air space. The Trump administration was counting on Saudi and pan-Arab desire to help the Palestinians and help the “peace process” to overcome Arab desires to avoid political danger, but that was an over-estimation of the degree of Arab official concern about the Palestinians. Arab regimes do care about the Palestinians, but they care about themselves and their own political health far more.      

In the United States, discussions of Iran have for the last few years been mostly about the JCPOA—the nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama. In the Middle East, things are different. This is because while we have been debating, Iran has been acting. And Israel has been reacting. Israel has struck sites in Syria one hundred times in the last five years, bombing when it saw an Iranian effort to move high-tech materiel to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Last month Israel bombed the so-called Scientific Studies and Researchers Center in Masyaf, a city in central Syria, a military site where chemical weapons and precision bombs were said to be produced. Now, there are reports (such as this column by the top Israeli military analyst, Alex Fishman, in the newspaper Yediot Achronot) that Iran is planning to build a military airfield near Damascus, where the IRGC (Revolutionary Guards) could build up their presence and operate. And that Iran and the Assad regime are negotiating over giving Iran its own naval pier in the port of Tartus. And that Iran may actually deploy a division of soldiers in Syria. Such developments would be unacceptable to Israel, and it will convey this message to Russia and to the United States. Russia’s defense minister will soon visit Israel, after which Israel’s defense minister will visit Washington. Previous Israeli efforts to get Putin to stop Iran (during Netanyahu’s four visits to Moscow in the last year) have failed, which suggests that Israel will need to do so itself, alone—unless the new Iran policy being debated inside the Trump administration leads the United States to seek ways to stop the steady expansion of Iran’s military presence and influence in the Middle East. That remains to be seen. Rumors suggest that the Trump administration may label the IRGC a terrorist group, which could open the door to using counter-terrorism authorities to stop its expansion. Whatever the debate over the JCPOA, there may well be a broader consensus in the administration that Iran’s growing military role in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region must be countered. Whatever the American conclusion, if Iran does indeed plan to establish a large and permanent military footprint in Syria—complete with permanent naval and air bases and a major ground force—Israel will have fateful decisions to make. Such an Iranian presence on the Mediterranean and on Israel’s border would change the military balance in the region and fundamentally change Israel’s security situation. And under the JCPOA as agreed by Obama, remember, limits on Iran’s nuclear program begin to end in only 8 years, Iran may now perfect its ICBM program, and there are no inspections of military sites where further nuclear weapons research may be underway. As Sen. Tom Cotton said recently, “If Iran doesn’t have a covert nuclear program today, it would be the first time in a generation.” Israel could be a decade away from a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and has bases in Syria—and could logically therefore even place nuclear weapons in Syria, just miles from Israel’s border. Fishman, the dean of Israel’s military correspondents, writes that “If the Israeli diplomatic move fails to bear fruit, we [Israel] are headed toward a conflict with the Iranians.” That conclusion, and the Iranian moves that make it a growing possibility, should be on the minds of Trump administration officials as they contemplate a new policy toward Iran’s ceaseless drive for power in the Middle East.    

This week Israel bombed a site in Syria, from Lebanese air space. This was the so-called Scientific Studies and Researchers Center in Masyaf, a city in central Syria, and it was hit because it is a military site where chemical weapons and precision bombs are said to be produced. Israel had made clear in a series of statements in the last six months that such a facility in Syria producing such weapons for use by Hezbollah against Israel would not be tolerated. I was reminded of 2007 and 2008, when Israeli officials repeatedly told me and other American officials that the rocketing of Israel by Hamas in Gaza was intolerable. If it does not stop, they said, an operation is inevitable. They meant it, and the result was Operation Cast Lead, which began on December 27, 2008. We in the Bush administration had been given fair warning. Today again, Israel has given the United States fair warning that there are limits to what Israel will tolerate in Iranian conduct and the Iranian presence in Syria. Israel has long intervened, perhaps 100 times over the years, to stop advanced weaponry from being transferred by Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Those were moving targets: caravans of trucks carrying such weaponry. But this week there was a stationary target, and I imagine the decision to fire from Lebanese air space was also a message—to Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. On August 23, Prime Minister Netanyahu visited Vladimir Putin in Moscow. The goal, I believe, was to tell Putin certain actions by Iran in Syria would be intolerable, and to ask him to restrain Iran—his ally in Syria. Putin’s reply was negative. In effect, he told Netanyahu “I’m not restraining you and I’m not restraining them. Not my job. Take care of your own security.” Having learned that there would be no help from that quarter, the Israelis acted. The Russians seem not to object: Netanyahu is doing what he said he would do, and what Putin would do in a similar situation. Israel is also acting in part because the United States does not seem willing to restrain Iran in any serious way in Syria. We are doing less, not more, while the Assad regime’s forces and Iran’s gain ground. Some news stories have suggested that war between Hezbollah and Israel is very likely now. In my view, the chances may have risen but I do not see why it is in Hezbollah’s interest to start such a war now. They are deeply involved in Syria, and they—and Iran—appear to be gaining ground steadily. Why start a war that may well involve Syria as well, with unpredictable effects on the conflict there? Why not continue making gains in Syria, and consolidate those gains? Bottom line: Israel is protecting its security, exactly as it has been telling the world it would. Israel’s strategic situation has been seriously damaged in the last several years because there is now an Iranian presence in Syria. The Israelis are not going to go into Syria and try to drive Iran, the Shia militias, and Hezbollah out, but they are trying to establish some limits to acceptable Iranian behavior. In my view this ought to be part of U.S. policy in the region as well. We do appear to have taken control of the Bab el Mandab strait leading to the Suez Canal, making it clear that Iran would not be permitted to threaten shipping there (on the seas or via missiles supplied to Houthi rebels in Yemen). We have not stopped Iran from threatening our ships in the Gulf. Candidate Trump said a year ago that "by the way, with Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats and they make gestures that our people -- that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water," but Iran has continued to do this after a brief pause right after Trump’s inauguration. And the administration has not clarified its policies in Iraq and Syria when it comes to limiting Iran’s provocative and aggressive behavior. What lies ahead is unclear because we cannot predict whether Iran will decide that the limits Israel is imposing are acceptable. Iran could well conclude that it does not absolutely need to have factories producing precision weapons in Syria. Iran can continue as it has for years producing such weapons in Iran and trying to move them to Hezbollah by land or sea. What would be useful at this point, it seems to me, is a statement by the United States that we approve of the action Israel took, and that in the event of a conflict Israel would have our support in defending itself—for example by allowing the Israelis to have access to the stocks of weapons that we store in Israel. This is the billion-dollar stockpile of ammunition, vehicles, and missiles in the “War Reserve Stockpile Ammunition-Israel.” Such a statement might, like the Israeli bombing of the weapons factory in Syria, help persuade Iran and Syria to observe the limits Israel is imposing, and might help avoid a wider conflict.

It was bound to happen, sooner or later. With the rapid increase over the years in Israel's GDP and in its population, Israel is no longer a poor country that needs the philanthropy of American Jews to survive. And the balance between the American Jewish population and the Israeli Jewish population has shifted as well. Depending on exactly how you count, there are more Jews in Israel today than in the United States--or if not, there will be soon.  The terrible damage wreaked by Hurricane Harvey affected, among other communities in Houston, the Jewish community there and its physical establishments, such as schools and synagogues. And now, as the Jerusalem Post reports, Israel is giving foreign aid to this American Jewish community. Here is part of the article:  Diaspora Affairs Minister Bennett has pledged $1 million in relief aid for the Jewish community of Houston, saying, “The Jewish state is measured by its response when our brothers around the world are in crisis.” According to a statement released by the ministry, this aid will be transferred through the Israeli Consulate in Texas, and will be used to help repair and restore the communal infrastructure – schools, synagogues and JCC – which are not funded or supported by the state. Noting the severity of the damages, and how flooded schools and synagogues can’t be used, Bennett said: “The city of Houston was hurt badly last week, and the Jewish community – 70% of which lived in the flooded neighborhoods – was hit hard. The old-age home and JCC were damaged, and hundreds of families will remain homeless. From talks we’ve had over the past week with the heads of the community and Israel’s Consul General, we learned the damage is vast, and the rehabilitation will take years. For years the Jewish communities stood by Israel when it needed their help; now it is our turn to stand by Houston’s Jewish community.” The Jerusalem Post calls this a "rare move," but I'd bet it will be less rare over time. It is logical to expect Israel to show, in ways such as this, that it is steadily becoming the largest and most important Jewish community in the world. Once upon a time, the center of world Jewish life was in Israel; then it moved to Europe; then to the United States; and now it is moving back to where it all began.