In order to further relations with Arab and Islamic countries, President Obama introduced a new policy of appeasement contrasting with his predecessors’ efforts to fight and isolate Muslim extremists. This week was yet another painful reminder of what it means. Ryan Crocker, who was the US ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to2009, called for opening a dialogue with the Hezbollah, "Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese political landscape, and we should deal with it directly." Jeffrey Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, promptly denied that such a change was being contemplated. According to Reuters he said Washington could rethink its policy if Hezbollah would stop maintaining a militia, drop "terrorist" activities and evolve into a "normal" part of Lebanon's political fabric. Crocker is retired today but was certainly aware of the facts that John Brennan, the President’s assistant for homeland security and counter-terrorism had been widely quoted as hinting that the administration was interested in reinforcing "moderate elements" in Hezbollah.

Barely two months ago , at the beginning of April, the White House had declared it would no longer use terms such as “Extremist and militant Islam” and would address factually the fight against Al Qaeda terrorists – that is would refrain from describing it in religious terms. During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in late May, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," and added that those planning attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms“. He added: "Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children." In other words, for Brennan there is no religious factor involved when Islamist terrorists kill women and children – even if the terrorists themselves ceaseless claim they are fighting to impose Islamic rule upon the world. This is pandering to the media in Arab and Muslim countries always prompt to justify operations carried out by terrorist organizations by explaining that this is a reaction to the insulting attitude of the West towards Islam. What is strange is that Brennan does not wonder why there are no mass demonstrations in Arab countries against terror attacks targeting civilians – since this is against Islam in his view. Nor does he comment on the rejoicing that goes on in these countries after a “successful “operation such as 9/11. Of course in an earlier speech at NY University in February Brennan had said “....I came to see Islam not as it is often misrepresented, but for what it is...a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity.”…. And in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is Al Quds” thus referring to the capital of Israel by its Arabic name.

In December 2009, State Department Egyptian desk director Nicole Chapman told Egyptian daily “Almasry Alyom” that the United States were engaged in a dialogue with the Muslim Brothers in Egypt and that meetings had taken place with their leaders, without giving details about the content of these meetings. Asked why then the U.S refused to talk with Khaled Mashal, the head of Hamas she is quoted at having said “We work with all political parties including those belonging to the “political Islamic stream in all the countries of the world.”

The following January Secretary of State Hilary Clinton lifted the visa ban imposed on Tarik Ramadan six years earlier. Tarik Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood Hassan el Banna, is considered as the most senior representative of the movement in Europe today and the best propagandist of Radical Islam in the West. According to the new White House policy he was admitted into the United States; he was offered a teaching position at Notre Dame University.

However the new American policy is replete with contradictions. How will it be possible to engage in a dialogue with Hezbollah, an organization created, supported and financed by Iran and strictly supervised by the Revolutionary Guards who while supplying it with weapons do not let it stray from their position regarding Israel and the West? Hezbollah’s main function is to be Iran’s advanced basis in the Middle East in order to further Iran’s interests in the region – first and foremost to destroy Israel. It has repeatedly asserted that it would refuse to surrender its weapons (as required by Security Council resolutions 1559, 1680 and 1701) and would not hesitate to plunge Lebanon into a civil war if asked to do so by the Lebanese government. Unfortunately the former British government had opened a dialogue with Hezbollah, claiming that one should distinguish between the armed and civilian branches of that organization. This despite the fact that Nasrallah is its sole leader and shows no sign of intending to abandon its aims and turns to compromise and peace in the interest of furthering dialogue with the West.

The U.S also made openings to Syria in the hope it would cut its links to Iran, stop giving assistance to Hezbollah and loosen its grip on Lebanon – but to no avail.

It refrained for giving support – even moral support – to the Iranian people protesting again the theft of their votes in the last election.

Returning to the Muslim Brothers – it would be difficult to forget that it was their founder, Hassan el Banna, and their foremost theologian, Sayed Qotob, who provided the religious basis for modern radical Islam adopted by Al Qaeda and its offshoots as well as the rationale for indiscriminate killing of Muslims and non Muslims, women and children to further their goal of imposing the rule of Islam by force. “Extremist Islam” which the White House wishes to eradicate from accepted political jargon is at the core of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement which has been threatening Egypt for the past 80 years and as such has been prosecuted and persecuted by successive Egyptian governments. King Farouk’s security apparatus killed el Banna; Nasser had Sayed Qotob executed together with the movement’s leaders; Sadat let them reorganize but kept them outside the law, and they killed him; Mubarak keeps fighting them because they threaten the stability of the country. After all, the motto of the Brotherhood is unchanged: “Islam is the solution”. So how can the United States maintain a dialogue with an outlawed organization in a country which is allegedly a friend and an ally?

One has to see this policy of appeasement at all cost within the framework of Obama’s first actions in office. On the very first day at his swearing in ceremony, he mentioned Islam before Judaism as having contributed to the construction of the United States. (When and how is not clear…), adding that some nine million Moslems live in the country – a wildly inflated number. He gave his first interview to Al Arabia - the well know Saudi TV channel – and flew to Turkey and then to Cairo to deliver his famous speech, stressing that the United States and Islam share common values of justice and progress, tolerance and respect of individuals. One can only wonder whether cutting off arms and legs, killing homosexuals, stoning adulterous women, executing people for converting to another religion represent those values of justice and progress? And what about the Taliban, Ahmedinejad or Sheik Al Awlaki who incited Major Nidal Malik Hasan to kill fellow American soldiers?

Unfortunately this new policy of appeasement included increased pressure on Israel and a departure from long established understandings. The demand for so-called proximity talks with the Palestinians and for the cessation of all new constructions including in Jerusalem is a complete reversal of traditional American positions. It upset the delicate balance achieved at Oslo and its main success, direct talks with no preconditions. Abu Mazen and with him the whole Arab world embraced the new terms set down by Israel’s erstwhile strongest ally.

America went a step further. When the periodical review on the implantation of the NPT convened last month, it voted the resolution demanding that Israel sign the treaty and providing for a special meeting to be convened within two years to check implementation. In its efforts to further appease Arab and Islamic states, including Iran, it willfully ignored the fact that Israel has to deal with the threats of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas chorusing together that they want to eradicate Israel from the surface of the earth.

What is perceived as a weakening of America’s support undoubtedly led Turkey to mount a deliberate provocation against Israel. A move which drew applause from the Arab world and from the European left, with President Obama calling on Erduan to present his condolences on the killing of peaceful Turkish citizens - (Didn’t he know that they belonged to a group of Islamist terrorists?) and agreeing to an immediate meeting of the Security Council and to the condemnation of Israel and a call to end the blockade of Gaza.

But what, if anything, did this policy of appeasement achieve? Nothing. No country changed its position regarding Israel or the United States; on the contrary, more and more concessions are demanded of Israel since it is expected that Washington will increase the pressure. For decades the United States had made it clear in deeds and words that it was behind Israel. Public opinion in the country is overwhelmingly pro-Israel as is the case in Congress and in major Medias. However executive power is vested in the White House, there winds of change are blowing. Notwithstanding Obama’s often repeated declarations of undying support for Israel’s security, it is unclear what would happen in case of a major confrontation between Israel and its sworn enemies. What if the sanctions against Iran are powerless to deter that country and it achieves nuclear capability? Would America intervene… or leave Israel to battle alone?

Zvi Mazel is former Ambassador of Israel to Romania, Egypt and Sweden and Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and State

http://www.jcpa.org.il/