WarSclerotic

Between obvious and oblivious, Israel Hayom, Smadar Bat Adam, September 25, 2016

Imagine if U.S. President Barack Obama, in his last speech before the U.N. General Assembly last week, would have opened by saying: “Eight years ago, when I was sworn in to office, I didn’t know much about the conflict in the Middle East or its origins. With the naivete of a novice, but with a great deal of desire to do good things for the world, I saw conflicts across the globe in black and white. I was sure that anywhere occupation existed, the job of the most powerful Western democracy was to draw the push the occupier back and liberate the occupied.”

Imagine that he would have finished by declaring: “Ladies and gentlemen, I was wrong. I didn’t believe in the existence of an occupied people who don’t yearn for peace. I couldn’t accept that there were people for whom destroying the occupier was more important than independence. After all, it goes against logic that the occupier isn’t the aggressor, but is the one defending himself.”

Now imagine that he would have added, “Today, when the entire world is under the threat of Islamist jihad, I understand. Israel is not the problem. Israel is the symptom. And the settlements are not the obstacle to peace; rather the obstacle is the refusal of the Palestinians, particularly of their leadership, to recognize the fact that Israel is the land and national home of the Jewish people. And the terror which Israel suffers is the same terror determined to kill anyone who doesn’t share its beliefs, which is why we should all stand by the State of Israel.”

Picture Obama expressing, even in milder terms, what many Europeans are already saying openly: “Obviously most Muslims are not involved in terrorism, but all terrorists are Muslim.” And think what a commotion that would have caused at the United Nations; and how those words could have disarmed U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who always has an accusatory finger ready to point at Israel.

In reality, however, what we heard were the familiar refrains: “Surely, Israelis and Palestinians would be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land.”

There is something of a start here. How joyous, indeed. Regardless, let’s just say it would be nice if the Palestinians would “reject incitement” — just as long as no one, heaven forbid, accuses them of doing the inciting. As for the Israelis, their guilt is clear. They are the occupier. Those who didn’t get it from the speech got it from Obama’s comments to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, albeit in a softened tone, during their much publicized meeting: “The U.S. is concerned about the settlements.”

It’s possible that Obama did not have the time (or the inclination) to learn what most people in the American intelligence community already know, that there is a clear link between Palestinian terrorism and global Islamic terrorism. And it’s quite possible, for various reasons, that this is the legacy he wishes to leave behind. It is also important, of course, to remember that his administration did give Israel a military aid package unprecedented in scope. He has emphasized the unbreakable bond between the countries and the deep concern for the wellbeing of Israel.

Meanwhile, perhaps we should stop focusing on the outgoing president’s swan song and instead help his successor understand this administration’s fundamental error: rejecting the premise that terrorism against Israel is part of fundamentalist Islam’s war of civilizations against the West. Let us hope that in a year’s time this will all be obvious, and we won’t have to imagine anymore. As Herzl would say: If you will it …