Last week, Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected as Prime Minister of Israel. His victory over Labour Leader Isaac Herzog marked the conclusion of a long campaign filled with incendiary speech by Netanyahu.
In the course of the last month, Netanyahu alienated his nation’s minority Arab-Israeli population. He repeatedly changed his stance on his commitment to a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. Finally, Netanyahu severely damaged the relationship between the Obama Administration and Israel in speaking before the U.S. Congress at the invitation of the Republican leadership, criticizing the President’s proposed nuclear agreement with Iran.
This is quite a lot to process; a week after his victory the future of Israel and the entire Middle East remains more muddled than ever. Netanyahu has already backtracked on his comments regarding Israeli Arabs and the two-state solution, leaving concerned Americans perplexed. The future of the region and U.S. involvement throughout the Middle East is very much in flux.
But frightening as this situation may sound, the instability and confusion that characterizes the American government’s relationships with Israel, Iran and the greater region also provides great opportunity to broker lasting peace in the Middle East.
Over the course of the last two years, representatives of the Palestinian people have made the greatest strides yet to attain statehood. Recognition of a Palestinian State by the European Parliament, UNESCO and possibly even the International Criminal Court and U.N. have put immense pressure on the U.S. to do more than simply repeat the old refrain that the U.S. opposes any considerations of Palestinian Statehood.
A recent feature in the New Yorker asserted that current Secretary of State John Kerry appears behind the times in front of diplomats from other nations by refusing to even consider the topic. Even if the U.S. can successfully block votes for Palestinian Statehood on the floor of the U.N., it does not necessarily behoove the U.S. to continually reject Palestine, using support for Israel as the pretense.
In fact, the American relationship with Israel is currently unhealthy. Former Secretary of State James Baker recently spoke out against Netanyahu, asserting that the Prime Minster has intentionally degraded Israel’s relationship with the U.S. to gain votes from the most extreme factions of his own nation. These statements are unprecedented, but also necessary.
Baker justly stated in the same remarks that the U.S. remains completely committed to Israel, and I believe that this is true. Americans arms and financial support to Israel remains stronger than ever. But Bakers remarks are incredible, because for too long any statement by U.S. policymakers that contradicted the direct wishes of Israel was labeled as anti-Israeli. That is simply not acceptable foreign policy.
Any international relationship, regardless of the nation, cannot exist when one partner simply does not tolerate constructive criticism from the other. Criticism of a foreign government or its decision does not mean that one nation suddenly does not support the either.
Yet for too long, the U.S. has afforded Israel the distinct privilege of unquestioning support for its denial of a Palestinian State and submission of Iranian nuclear ambitions; such a relationship is both unfair to the U.S., and is actually an impediment to American foreign policy in the Middle East.
An article in last Wednesday’s New York Times asserted that there has never been a more opportune moment for the U.S. and Palestinians to pressure Israel into increased recognition of Palestine, and that the Obama Administration may be closer to such move as a result of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s open defiance of the best interests of his relationship with President Obama. The U.S. should take advantage of this opportunity to demonstrate to Netanyahu he cannot call the shots and expect no backlash. President Obama does not have to recognize Palestine, but he should demonstrate to Prime Minster Netanyahu that American policy is directed by American interests, not by Netanyahu.
This is particularly true as regards Iran. Historically, the U.S. and Iran have had an extremely poor relationship. With the American government’s complicity in the removal of the democratically Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossaddegh in 1953, our nation established itself as an enemy of Iran. The American backed Shah of Iran (or perhaps more appropriately, dictator), was eventually deposed, at which point Shi’a fundamentalists took control of the government. The relationship only worsened with the subsequent hostage crisis in 1979, and has remained poor since.
For the first time in decades, the Obama Administration has the opportunity to improve the relationship of the U.S. and Iran. To some, this may seem like madness. But Richard Nixon’s secret negotiations with China in the 1970s transformed a nation that was once one of the greatest threats to the U.S. into our strongest (or at least most interconnected) trade partner. Similarly, the establishment of close economic ties between the newly formed Russian Federation in the 1990s transformed a formerly antagonist people into a strong American trade partner.
While Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons has justly raised fears of an attack not only against Israel, but also the U.S., American diplomats for the first time in decades have the opportunity to decrease tensions between Iran and the U.S. Iran and the U.S. could conceivably create trade ties (Iranian oil would certainly be a highly valued commodity). Moreover, the rapid spread of the predominately Sunni Islamic States actually provides Iran and the U.S. with an opportunity to work together. This does not mean that the U.S. should wholeheartedly embrace Iran with open arms; on the contrary, the U.S. needs to retain a healthy suspicion of the state.
Opening diplomatic channels of communication between the U.S. and Iran provides an opportunity to transform a stale and broken relationship into something less dangerous. The U.S. should not let unquestioning support of Israel impede this progress.
To clarify, I am personally also committed to the safety and existence of the state of Israel. I am not ashamed to admit that I have never cried more in my life than my first visit to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., It is not necessary to justify the existence of the Israeli State, as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horrors of the Holocaust understands just how important the existence of Israel is.
Anti-Semitism is as real a threat to the Israeli people today as it was 70 years ago, and its security concerns are unlike any other nation in the world. The threat of Hamas in Palestine is real, and the attacks against Israel by Hamas and Hezzbollah only further prove that Israel truly is always at risk of being attacked.
American foreign policy in the Middle East cannot remain stagnant, especially given the volatile nature of the region. More importantly, American policy should be crafted with the best interests of U.S. citizens in mind, and not be written in Jerusalem by a populist such as Netanyahu.
I am not a professional diplomat, and cannot assert with complete confidence that the U.S. should or should not support the creation of a Palestinian State at this time. But to simply refuse to consider the proposal is foolish foreign policy, as it ignores the rapidly increasing international support for a new nation and only further diminishes America’s reputation among other Arab states. This is particularly true that Israeli and Palestine are inevitably bound to coexist; the alternative of one nation somehow surmounting the other and controlling the region is the sort of perverse solution that inspired the Holocaust, and led to the creation of Israel itself. The two peoples are both bound to the same lands. The question is simply how they will live together.
Moreover, the U.S. cannot afford to sacrifice a possible nuclear deal with Iran simply because Prime Minister Netanyahu has his misgivings about the proposal. On the contrary, the deal has the opportunity to decrease a security threat to the U.S., and could possibly even improve Israel’s security situation in the long run. If the U.S. has relationships with both Israel and Iran, it provides American diplomats with the opportunity to improve relations between the two nations, as it did in Northern Ireland in the 1990s between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. But without a relationship with Iran and with an unhealthy relationship with Israel, not such agreement is even possible.
At precisely the moment when we should be working to repair these fractured relationships, the U.S. cannot afford to look outdated and backwards in our foreign policy approach just because Netanyahu said so.
Reach the columnist at clmurph5@asu.edu or follow @ConnorLMurphy on Twitter.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
