What has been confusing, if not disturbing, about the Obama administration is its position vis-à-vis the nearly month-long war that Israel launched against Gaza where Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group, is in control.
President Barack Obama defends Israel, saying it has the right to defend itself against the Hamas bombardment that resulted in the death of only three civilians and 64 soldiers. On the other hand, nearly 2,000 Palestinians have bee killed, most of them civilians. The destruction of thousands of homes in Gaza, where 1.8 million Palestinians are squeezed into a narrow enclave, Reuters reported, has drawn international condemnation.
According to the United Nations, at least 425,000 displaced Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are in emergency shelters or staying with host families. Nearly 12,000 homes have been destroyed or severely damaged by Israeli air strikes and heavy shelling.
Obama’s tepid remarks critical of Israel contrast sharply with what his top White House aide had to say a few weeks earlier in Israel at a conference sponsored by Haaretz, the liberal Israeli newspaper. One headline that described the speech given by Philip Gordon, the White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Region, read “Top Obama official blasts Israel for denying Palestinians sovereignty, security, [and] dignity.”
He continued, “How can Israel have peace if it’s unwilling to delineate a border, end the occupation.”
The speech, revealed by Mondoweiss.net but not in any major US publication, was critical of Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank, which began in 1967, and underlined that “Israel confronts an undeniable reality — it cannot maintain control of another people indefinitely.”
Gordon continued, “Palestinians have a right to be a sovereign, free, and secure people in their own land [and] we consider [colonies] illegitimate and an impediment to progress on peace negotiations.”
What has been surprising has been Obama’s failure to repeat these words elsewhere especially nowadays since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lately been known to be attempting to cripple the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Similarly alarming this week have also been the views of Hillary Clinton, who many believe is aspiring to run for the next presidential elections in two years.
In a long interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, a one-time Israeli soldier and now with The Atlantic magazine, reported that Clinton “offered a vociferous defence of Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, as well,” adding that “this is noteworthy because, as secretary of state, she spent a lot of time yelling at Netanyahu on the administration’s behalf over Israel’s West Bank [colony] policy and now, she is leaving no daylight at all between the Israelis and herself”.
Clinton’s turnaround is most probably linked to her high expectations for political and financial support from the influential American Jewish community.
When asked about the “intense international focus” on Gaza, Goldberg reported that she was quick to identify anti-Semitism as an important motivating factor in criticism of Israel. Clinton, he continued, also seemed to take an indirect shot at the administration critics of Netanyahu, who has argued that the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Middle East means that Israel cannot, in the foreseeable future, withdraw its forces from much of the West Bank.
She went on: “If I were the prime minister of Israel, you’re damn right I would expect to have control over security, because even if I’m dealing with [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas, who is 79 years old, and other members of Fatah, who are enjoying a better lifestyle making money on all kinds of things, that does not protect Israel from the influx of Hamas or cross-border attacks from anywhere else. With Syria and Iraq, it is all one big threat. So Netanyahu could not do this in good conscience.”
The publication of this interview coincided with the appointment of William Schabas, a Canadian international lawyer who will be running an inquiry into Israel’s bloody Gaza offensive. This commission’s finding will be published by the Human Rights Council in March 2015.
The appointment of Schabas was criticised by Israel, which claimed that he was biased against the country, a charge he vehemently denied.
In January 2012, Israel became the first country to refuse to attend a periodic review of its human right record. Two months later, Israel cut all ties with the Geneva-based council after it announced an inquiry into how the illegal West Bank colonies may be infringing on Palestinian rights.
The question remains, why is the White House speaking in two voices?
George S. Hishmeh is a Washington-based columnist. He can be contacted at ghishmeh@gulfnews.com
