Thanks for what?

Rob Eshman, the Jewish Journal’s Editor-in-chief, would like to thank President Obama on behalf of the Jewish people. I do not want to be ingrate but an examination of the historical record leads me to a completely opposite conclusion. Starting at the beginning of the Obama administration in 2009, we were introduced to a “new beginning” in Cairo. After making multiple layers of obeisance to the Islamic world, including the historical stretch that “Islam has always been a part of the American story,” the President turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Obama did acknowledge the connection between Israel and America based upon cultural and historical ties. However, when he spoke of the rationale for Israel, the facts went by the wayside. From the Cairo speech, “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.” In the very next sentence, the tragic history culminates in the Holocaust. Obama played right into an anti-Israel narrative of using Western guilt over the Holocaust as the justification for Israel’s existence, which is a misinterpretation of history. It ignores the fact that there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Israel since biblical times, albeit as a minority during much of the time since the destruction of the Second Temple. It ignores the fact that the only national polity that ever existed in the Land of Israel has been a Jewish state. It ignores the fact that Jews have been pining to return to Israel ever since the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. In his first major foreign policy address to the Arab world, a speech that would have been checked and rechecked by multiple departments and advisors within his administration, President Obama opted to ignore the Jewish historical connection to the Land of Israel.

And by doing so, could the President have been perceived as a supporting a distorted view of history that views Zionism as Western colonizers trampling the rights of an indigenous Arab population? I am sure that is what the Arab world heard when the speech was delivered as did the policy makers in Jerusalem.

In that same speech, the President recognized the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a nation of their own. Even the most ardent Zionist cannot ignore the Arab historical connection to the same piece of real estate. Given that Arab expulsion is neither a viable nor a moral option, you are left with a two-state solution, which is supported by a majority of the Israeli public. However, the President began his quest for a two-state solution by making demands upon Israel, demands that many Israelis would view as unreasonable with no comparable demands on Israel's ostensible “partner in peace.”

Later that same year, in response to pressure from the President for whom according to Eshman, Jews and Israelis should be grateful, Netanyahu imposed a ten-month settlement freeze on areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines, which are mistakenly called the “1967 borders.” Ariel Sharon vacated Gaza based upon an understanding with America, which was evidenced by 2004 letter from President Bush. The key points of that letter from the Israeli perspective were recognition of major land blocs in the territories remaining with Israel as part of any negotiated settlement. “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

Did that letter carry any weight with the Obama administration? I think not! Did that ten-month freeze jump start negotiations? Well it took the Palestinians nine of those ten months to get to the starting gate and they would not continue the talks without continuing the settlement freeze; something no Arab negotiator had previously ever asked for in any direct negotiations with the Israelis. Has President Obama ever demanded that Palestinian negotiators back off from their so-called “right of return,” which is a 100% non-starter from the Israel perspective? We all know the answer to that question is no. So the “intransigent” Israelis are blasted for settlement activities, even while there are de facto freezes in areas outside the major settlement blocs, while Abu Mazen is never called to task for failing to prepare his people to vacate the right of return, something which is an absolute necessity in order to reach agreement with the Israelis?

What about cutting off rearming Israel during Operation Protective Edge? Are those the actions of Israel’s best friend? What about the “chicken sh#t” story? In that article, Jeffrey Goldberg kept a running list of names the Obama administration has used to describe Bibi – “recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and ‘Aspergery.’” Is that the way one talks about an ally?

All of the foregoing is minor league compared to what is happening in Iran. In his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, which was a prelude to the Adas Israel speech, the President spoke about the Iranian mullahs being both rationale and anti-Semitic. Any actions directed towards that goal are inherently irrational. How does the President fail to see that? Is it possible that Obama thinks every actor on the world stage views issues through the same prism that he does? Israel, however, understands both the Arab and Iranian mentalities in ways that the President never will because of having to survive in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world. What are the consequences to Israel and Obama about Obama being wrong about Iran? In that interview, the President makes clear that the Iran deal will be his mark on history, in other words his legacy. If it does not work out, history will view him unfavorably. If Obama is wrong, Israel faces the possibility of existential annihilation. Perhaps, that is somewhat more important to Israeli society than what history will think of Obama. So what Eshman thinks of as a lack of gratitude, I see as inherently rational, given the history of the relationship with Obama and the potential impact of the Iranian deal.