The State Department’s reaction to the attacks and Israel’s countermeasures, while on the surface largely supportive of Israel, was nonetheless perplexing.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in a press briefing:
The United States condemns today’s horrific terrorist attack in Tel Aviv in the strongest possible terms. These cowardly attacks against innocent civilians can never be justified. We are in touch with Israeli authorities to express our support.
We understand the Israeli government’s desire to protect its citizens after this kind of terrorist attack. We would just hope that any measures that Israel takes would be designed to not escalate tensions any further, but we certainly respect their desire to express outrage and to protect the safety of their people.
Mr. Toner made particular note of Israel’s decision not to return the bodies of the Tel Aviv terrorists to their families, saying this is “obviously an internal matter for Israel to debate.” But he also pointedly noted as well Israel’s decision to restrict Palestinian movement in and out of the Gaza Strip. He went on to explain that the U.S. seeks to “simply caution” Israel to “take into account” the effect these security measures will have on the lives of Palestinian civilians.
We are puzzled by the caution. The reactions from the UN Security Council and most other countries – typically far less solicitous of Israel than the U.S. – were limited to condemnations of the perpetrators.
Thus, the Security Council, which seems never to miss an opportunity to take a swipe at Israel, issued a public statement – although not a resolution – approved by all 15 members expressing sympathy to the families of the Israelis killed in the attack and of those who were injured. The Security Council statement “reiterated that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable.” And that was just about all the statement said.
Indeed, Israel’s UN Ambassador, Danny Danon, praised the council statement, saying it was the first official UN condemnation of “terrorism” in Israel since the current series of attacks began eight months ago and it constituted “an important and moral statement.”
To be sure, France, one of the fifteen members of the Security Council signing on to the statement, issued some words of its own. The Sarona attack was “abominable,” the French foreign minister said, but then added: “The decision by the Israeli authorities…to revoke tens of thousands of entry permits could stoke tensions which could lead to a risk of escalation….We must be careful about anything that could stoke tensions.”
France is one story, but why would the United States issue cautionary words to Israel when so many others had not? And, as noted above, the American statement disclosed that the U.S. had been in touch with Israel in private to express its support. So why didn’t the U.S. government convey its “caution” in private as well?
This will no doubt play out in the coming weeks and we will have a better perspective. But one possibility – and we emphasize it’s just a possibility – is that it’s of a piece with a move President Obama has long been rumored to be contemplating that would cement into place formal UN guidelines for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians once he leaves office.
In that case, the public “caution” to Israel may have been a signal, intended or not, that the administration is easing into a more neutral approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the waning months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
Of course, prior speculation concerning a possible softening of support for Israel on the part of the administration has never quite panned out, and the U.S. over the past eight years has defended Israel as staunchly as ever in the UN and other international forums.
