By Donald H. Harrison
The White House and the U.S. State Department on Wednesday, March 18, both voiced their displeasure with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party’s call to Jewish Israelis on Israel’s election day, March 17, to counter that country’s Arab vote, and additionally with Netanyahu’s pre-election announcement that he no longer supported creation of an independent Palestinian state.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said on Wednesday that Likud party rhetoric “that sought to, frankly, marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens” caused the Obama administration deep concern.
Such rhetoric, he said in a meeting with reporters aboard Air Force One, “undermines the values and democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the United States and Israel together. We’ve talked a lot about how our shared values are an important part of what binds our two countries together, and rhetoric that seeks to marginalize one segment of their population is deeply concerning and it is divisive. And I can tell you that these are views that the administration intends to communicate directly to the Israelis.”
Although Secretary of State John Kerry telephoned congratulations to Netanyahu on his victory, President Obama has not yet placed such a call, Earnest said. He said in the past the President has waited until such time as a winning candidate is called upon by the President of Israel to form a new government. Assuming Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin follows tradition, this will be done after he has had an opportunity to privately consult with the leaders of all the parties that have won seats in the Knesset.
While Earnest declined to characterize what Obama planned to say to Netanyahu when they do speak, the press secretary reiterated that “there is deep concern about this divisive rhetoric and we will share these deep concerns directly with the Israelis.”
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki was asked on Wednesday about Kerry’s phone call to Netanyahu. She responded that Kerry called to congratulate him. “Given there is an ongoing government formation process, they did not discuss substantive issues,” she added. “So the purpose of the call was to congratulate him on the election.”
Psaki said that the State Department shared the White House’s concern about the Likud party rhetoric.
On the broader topic of Netanyahu no longer favoring a two state solution, Earnest said:
“… (I)t has been the policy of the United States for more than 20 years that a two-state solution is the goal of resolving the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinian people. And that two-state solution has been pursuit of a democratic and Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with an independent and sovereign Palestinian state. That has been the policy of the United States under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. In the context of the recent election, Prime Minister Netanyahu indicated a change in his position. And based on those comments, the United States will evaluate our approach to the situation moving forward.”
Asked to expand on what that might mean, Earnest said:
“What I’m suggesting is that it has been the longstanding policy of the United States that a two-state solution is the best way to address this conflict, primarily because it is in the security interest of the Israeli people — again, in the view of the United States — it is in the best interest of the Israeli people because it would be the best way to resolve the very legitimate security concerns that they have.
The United States also happens to believe, and the President also happens to believe that this would be the best way to resolve the situation, this conflict in a way that satisfies the concerns of the Palestinian people as well. They seek a sovereign, independent state. This solution also has the benefit of best addressing the stability of the region; that this ongoing conflict has contributed to instability throughout the region and that addressing this conflict by establishing a Jewish independent state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a sovereign, independent Palestinian state is the best way to defuse regional tensions as well.
Of course, it’s not going to solve every problem, but we know that this ongoing conflict does serve to inflame tensions around the region and promote instability. And it has long been the policy of the United States and it continues to be the view of the President that a two-state solution is the best way to address those tensions and address that instability.
At the State Department, Psaki was asked in light of Netanyahu’s turnaround if the United States might change how it votes in the U.N. Security Council on resolutions affecting Israel and the Palestinians.
She responded. “we are not going to get ahead of any decisions about what the United States would do with regard to potential action at the United – UN Security Council. I will reiterate that it has long been the position of the United States under Republican and Democratic presidents, and it has been the position of successive Israeli governments, that only a two-state solution that results in a secure Israel alongside a sovereign and independent Palestine can bring lasting peace and stability to both peoples. A two-state solution is the only way for the next Israeli Government to secure Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. We believe that it’s in the best interests of the United States, Israel, and the region.
The prime minister, as we all know, in his comments earlier this week indicated that he is no longer committed to pursuing this approach. Based on the prime minister’s comments, the United States is in a position going forward where we will be evaluating our approach with regard to how best to achieve a two-state solution. Obviously, I’m not going to prejudge at this point what that means.
A reporter noted that the Palestinians have said the P.A. is practically bankrupt because Israel has suspended transfer of Palestinian tax revenues. To this Psaki replied:
“Well, we remain very concerned about the continued viability of the Palestinian Authority if they do not receive funds soon, either in terms of the resumption of monthly Israeli transfers of Palestinian tax revenues or additional donor assistance. The election just happened yesterday, as all of you know, so obviously we have not yet had the chance to discuss these issues with them.”
Given such fundamental disagreements between Israel and the U.S. over a two-state solution and over the Iran nuclear negotiations, asked a reporter, could this impact cooperation between the two allies.
To this Psaki said, “We will continue our close military, intelligence, and security cooperation with Israel. This close security cooperation is essential to the security of the Israeli people and it certainly is in the interests of the United States. We’ve been long familiar with the views of the prime minister on Iran. We don’t think that his win has impacted the Iran negotiations or will. Certainly, his recent comments on opposition to the Palestinians having a state have caused us to evaluate our approach moving forward. But beyond that, there are issues we work together on that we will continue to.”
*
Preceding based on White House and State Department transcripts. Those wishing to post a comment may do so in accordance with the instructions below.
__________________________________________________________________
Care to comment? San Diego Jewish World is intended as a forum for the entire Jewish community, whatever your political leanings. Letters may be posted below provided they are responsive to the article that prompted them, and civil in their tone. Ad hominem attacks against any religion, country, gender, race, sexual orientation, or physical disability will not be considered for publication. Letters must be signed with your first and last name, and you must state your city and state of residence. There is a limit of one letter per writer on any given day.
__________________________________________________________________