Secretary Panetta’s Speech – A Rorschach Test
Ed Rettig, Director, AJC Jerusalem
December 5, 2011

Al Jazeera (Reuters): “Panetta: Israel must 'get to the damn table'”
New York Times: “Defense Chief Says Israel Must Mend Arab Ties"
Fox News: “Panetta Scolds Israel on Peace Talks”

Sometimes media can make a public event into a Rorschach test, reporting what they are predisposed to want us to see. Coverage of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s speech to the Saban Forum is an example. The transcript simply does not bear out the headlines.

Panetta declared publicly that Israel’s security, based on its relationship with the United States, is a core component of stability in the region: “…that bond is the fundamental key to stability and hope in the Middle East, and it is a bond that must never be broken.” He spelled out the three principles of America’s regional policy: “First, our unshakable commitment to Israel’s security. Second, our broader commitment to regional stability. And third, our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” Panetta illustrated these principles by referring to the Administration’s actions. He cited “unprecedented levels of defense cooperation with Israel to back up our unshakable commitment to Israel’s security.” AJC’s sources in the Israeli defense establishment confirm this without reservation, noting the announcement in the same speech of the largest-ever joint U.S.-Israel military exercises.

Contrary to the impression created by some reports, Secretary Panetta did not single out Israel for lack of progress in the peace process. After moderator Kenneth Pollack asked whether Israel should withdraw its troops from the West Bank, Panetta urged both the Palestinians and the Israelis to “get to the damn table.” On the matter of Israel’s relations with Turkey, he suggested that both Turkey and Israel “need to do more to put their relationship back on the right track.”

Each of the media outlets I quoted above, along with the dozen or so more I could have cited, had its reasons for spinning their reports. Some may be anti-Israel, others anti-Netanyahu, and even others anti-Obama. They all failed utterly to convey the positive message Panetta delivered.

And yet even within the framework of a friendly speech there are two points that raise questions, not so much about underlying policy, but of nuance and timing. These relate to the peace process and the Iranian nuclear threat.

Secretary Panetta expressed disagreement with “a view that this is not the time to pursue peace and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel.” In his view, “Now is the time for Israel to take bold action and to move towards a negotiated two-state solution.” In fact no one in the Israeli government or academia disagrees in theory with the Secretary’s view that “Israel will ultimately be safer when other Middle Eastern states adopt governments that respond to their people, promote equal rights, promote free and fair elections, uphold their international commitments, and join the community of free and democratic nations.” Some Israeli critics suggest, however, that Panetta inadequately addressed the fact that voters in the recent historic elections in Arab states expressed their will by empowering or giving substantial influence to Islamists, whose worldview does not allow for normal relations with Israel. Given this reality, and also Israel’s practical experience with the withdrawal from Gaza, even many who agree with him that the two-state solution is “the only real long-term path to security and prosperity” see no basis for his confidence that now is the time for “bold action.”

On Iran, Secretary Panetta offered five arguments in support of current U.S. policy: a military attack would only delay the Iranian project by a year or so; such an attack could well lead to a backlash of support by Iranians for a regime many of them otherwise detest; it would expose the U.S. to retaliation against its ships and military bases; it would endanger the economies of Europe and the U.S; and an escalation of conflict could “consume the Middle East.” Panetta cited Prime Minister Netanyahu, who had said that military action “must be the last resort, not the first.”

Critics of this approach do not necessarily disagree with this assessment of the potential costs of an attack on Iran, but stress the importance of encouraging the Iranians to believe a military strike is likely. This, they argue, will incentivize steps by Iran that would prevent the need for military action. And they ask whether the constant refrain out of Washington and Jerusalem about “last resort” might not be counterproductive to the ultimate goal of American Iran policy which is, in Secretary Panetta’s words, “to do everything we can to make sure that they never obtain a nuclear weapon.”

One hopes the Iranian leadership will not be put at ease by the Secretary’s evident lack of enthusiasm for the military option, and will focus instead on his unmistakably stern message that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity.

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.