Outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Israel Explains Obama’s Commitment to Israel

Ariela Fleisig — July 8, 2011 – 11:32 am | Barack Obama | Foreign Policy | Israel Comments (0) Add a comment

Outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Israel James Cunningham today spoke about the Obama Administration’s commitment to “support Israel in its needs” and about the negative consequences of the Palestinian’s plans to unilaterally declare a state at the United Nations during an interview with The Jerusalem Post’s Herb Keinon.

When asked about U.S.-Israel relations, Cunningham explained that the two countries have a better relationship than in the past. He said:

It is closer, more frequent in-depth analysis of tactics and strategy; comparing understanding in detail about what is happening in Iran, and with the Iranian nuclear program. That concerted effort by this administration has really taken a discussion that was good before, and really made it much better, and made our understating much closer.

And on the security field…because we do understand and share Israel’s concern about its security in the region, and know there can’t be peace and stability here if Israel is insecure, this administration has made a really concerted effort to support Israel in its needs across a spectrum of things, to support its security posture in the region and make sure that it has both the technology and equipment it needs to provide for itself.

After discussing the growing U.S. support for and cooperation with the Israeli military, Cunningham discussed President Barack Obama’s dedication to Israel:

I think that was a central message the president has been trying to send, and was sending in May, if you go back and look at his speech [at the State Department], and the speech [three days later] at AIPAC. He was trying to convey what I think is a very deeply felt commitment to Israel as a state, as the homeland of the Jewish people, and as a place to which the United States has really a bedrock connection that will not be undone…

It’s not that this administration has ideas or is proposing things that might not be immediately welcomed here because we are indifferent or unfeeling or uncaring, or because the president is not committed. We may have different perceptions of a particular challenge or problem and a different idea about how to deal with it, and when those things happen - as has happened in the last couple years - we sit down and talk and try to figure out how to deal with that and how to move on. And that is what we are doing now.

He addressed concerns about the President’s speeches to the State Department and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):

The second speech was a kind of a reminder of what he actually said, as opposed to what he was reported to have said.

And what he actually said was he talked about the borders, yes; but he also talked about the importance of security, what that security paradigm in general terms would have to look like, and how we would all have to get there: the need for gradual withdrawals of the Israeli presence in a secure environment in which the Palestinians demonstrate that they are able to provide security.

Very important was his statement about Hamas, and the need to understand that one cannot negotiate with an entity committed to your destruction, and that this reconciliation process raises real questions that need answers.

That is, I think, an important statement that might have gotten at least as much coverage from the original speech as the borders - but it didn’t…

We have said repeatedly in many different formats that an agreement - a genuine peace agreement - needs to be final; provide for the homeland of the Jewish people and for the Palestinian people; and that it needs to based on security for Israel… Just because he didn’t go through that whole litany again doesn’t meant that it hasn’t formed the background of how he has been dealing with this from the very beginning, because it has.

Cunningham also discussed the negative consequences of the Palestinians’ plans to unilaterally declare a state at the United Nations:

They run the risk of ending up with a result that will make it more difficult, rather than easier, to actually negotiate the outcome they want, because there could be things in the resolution that will make it more difficult to negotiate. Or, depending on what direction it takes, it could even lead away from it, or try to lead away from negotiations.

However it works out, if that route is taken, it could - depending on the politics of it - it could be an obstacle both politically and in terms of substance to at some point resuming the only path that will really resolve the issue. We think it is very ill advised to open that door. We will keep trying to persuade the Palestinians and others not to do it, and if they do, we will deal with it when the time comes.

Click here to read the full interview.

 

Comments

There are no comments for this entry