Love of the Land: The Price of Engagement

The Price of Engagement

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
19 October 09

John Bolton observes that the UN Human Rights Council, in its latest spasm of Israel-bashing, has further damaged the so-called Middle East peace process. (It isn’t like things were going swimmingly, but leave it to the UN to make things worse.) He writes:

In the month since the report’s release, it has roiled the Middle East peace process. An Israeli spokesman said “it will make it impossible for us to take any risks for the sake of peace,” perhaps foreshadowing Israeli withdrawal from negotiations while the report remains under active U.N. consideration.

The HRC resolution endorsing the report’s recommendations repeatedly lacerated Israel, leading Mr. Goldstone himself to cringe, saying he was “saddened” the resolution contained “not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report.” A U.S. State Department spokesman conceded that the adopted text “went beyond even the scope of the Goldstone Report itself.”

But this is what one expects of the HRC – and why the Bush administration thought it best not to give credence to the body. But, as Bolton observes, it is not simply out of solidarity with the Jewish state that it would be a good idea to bug out. It is rather in our own self-interest to do so:

The Goldstone Report has important implications for America. In the U.N., Israel frequently serves as a surrogate target in lieu of the U.S., particularly concerning the use of military force pre-emptively or in self-defense. Accordingly, U.N. decisions on ostensibly Israel-specific issues can lay a predicate for subsequent action against, or efforts to constrain, the U.S. Mr. Goldstone’s recommendation to convoke the International Criminal Court is like putting a loaded pistol to Israel’s head—or, in the future, to America’s.

Bolton’s observation highlights a key problem with Obama’s push to put that “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. As we aim to ingratiate ourselves with Israel’s foes, we also do great damage to our own interests, which, despite the Obamis’ moral and geopolitical obtuseness, are closely aligned with Israel’s. The Goldstone report strikes at the heart of democratic societies’ ability to wage wars of self-defense against terrorists who would use woman and children as shields (and thereby maximize the body count of both for propaganda value). Wouldn’t this be a bad precedent to set for America, which is, after all, engaged in wars against those who employ the very same tactics? You’d think our rhetoric would be more robust in condemning the Goldstone report, and our toleration much less for the HRC’s anti-terror-fighting gambit.

Nevertheless, we can surmise that an administration that sees benefit in putting daylight between America and another democracy beset by Islamic terrorists isn’t likely to put daylight between America and the HRC. In fact, the rush to “engage” Israel’s foes as well as our own, to smother them with words of affection and apologies at all costs, makes itimpossible to disengage, even when their behavior is reprehensible, as is the case with the HRC.

By making “engagement” a central principle of American foreign policy, we hand the foes of democracy, human rights, and the West tremendous influence and immunity from retribution. They can engage in whenever outlandish behavior they see fit to without fear of detrimental consequences. After all, we’ve already told them we’re going to engage with them no matter what. Doesn’t seem like very smart diplomacy, does it?

Love of the Land: The Price of Engagement