I was not the only one to be dismayed by the comments of U.S. Senate hopeful Robert P. Casey Jr., soon after his return from Israel a few months back.
The Pennsylvania state treasurer had visited Israel in November for five days. There he met many people, visited many sites; and said the trip “had a profound impact” on him emotionally and spiritually. Despite this, the Democratic candidate found himself tongue-tied when it came to the issue of Jerusalem’s diplomatic status. Should the U.S. government finally recognize it for what it has been for nearly sixty years, Israel’s administrative and emotional capital? “Casey would not say whether he favors recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,” the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on December 7.
It was disappointing that Casey, having seen the situation for himself, failed to come out and endorse Israel’s right to choose its own capital city, a privilege that Washington grants every other single state on earth. It was also disappointing that Casey did not urge the U.S. government to follow the law of the land, which requires that the American embassy to Israel be located in Jerusalem.
But the real problem runs deeper, in that Casey’s non-committal reply suggests that he does not understand the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital would, most importantly, send a signal to the Palestinians and their supporters about the depth, permanence, and resolve of U.S. support for Israel.
That might seem superfluous given the extensive, on-going relations between the two countries. But the Arab-Israeli conflict is in large part psychological and the Palestinian willingness to go on making war, sending children as suicide bombers, enduring economic hardships, watching the possibility of a state slip away, seeing their international reputation descend lower and lower – all that continues only so long as the hope and belief exists that it is eventually leading to victory. Should that expectation be shattered, the Palestinian urge to make war would diminish substantially.
And victory for the Palestinians, let there be no doubt about it, means just one thing: eliminating the State of Israel. Outside of Iran, these days, that is usually said not overtly and rudely, but with some artifice. “Right of return” is the catchword, not “throw the Jews into the sea.” “One-state solution” has replaced “destroy Israel.” But, however stated, the intent is the same, namely replacing the Jewish state with a Palestinian, Arab, Muslim-dominated polity.
This reality has a direct implication for U.S. policy, which should specifically be directed toward convincing the Palestinians that they cannot defeat Israel, that Israel exists, is permanent, and the Palestinian must give up their terrible intentions.
A key component of convincing the Palestinians involves Jerusalem, the emotional heart of the conflict.
Sending an unambiguous message of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the U.S. embassy there (such as Rick Santorum advocates) will likely serve as a major step toward ending the Arab-Israeli conflict.
But there is a happy ending to this story. Irate Democrats bombarded the Casey campaign with protests and, just four days after the original story came out, Casey made an about-face and told the Forward he would “make sure this government moves the embassy to Jerusalem.”
Casey is indeed “proving himself to be a quick study,” as the Forward noted. Too bad he did not figure out the right policy on his own.
