Being tone deaf is not a strategy
When an idea fails miserably, don’t try it a second time. Rather elementary, no?
Not for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He had an idea. It was to withhold humanitarian aid from Gaza last March, at a time when stockpiles of aid were in place. The idea was to pressure Hamas into reaching a hostage deal, or even to surrender.
One may debate this policy, but one may not debate the outcome: miserable failure. There are no two ways about it. The “stockpiles” part got totally lost in the reportage. To this day, it is hardly known. Israel did not intend to starve Gazans, it intended to pressure Hamas.
Hamas was not pressured.
To the contrary, Hamas turned the idea on its head with the result that Israel’s good name has never been more besmirched in our memory.
Was it right to withhold humanitarian aid? Debate away. Some point out that in previous existential wars against ghastly enemies — such as America’s and Europe’s war against the Nazis — the enemy was not fed. Not a crumb. Others say that it is morally wrong to use food as a weapon in Gaza, even if humanitarian aid was stockpiled. Whichever side of the debate one comes down on, there is no debate that the tactic failed miserably.
Not only was Hamas not pressured, but Israel’s friends in Europe turned against her.
Now, a prime minister is not expected to be a prophet. He could not have predicted the outcome of his intended pressure tactic on Hamas. Hindsight is not basis for criticism.
However, a prime minister is expected not to make the same mistake twice. But here is Netanyahu, again seen as using food as weapon. Not in the exact same way, to be certain, but from the point of view of the optics, it’s exactly the same way. And it’s the optics that have besmirched Israel, and threaten to do so again.
Netanyahu launched a video address to Iran — to the whole country except for the rulers — telling the Iranian people that Israel will help with Iran’s critical water crisis if the Iranian people overthrow their rulers.
Which means, clearly, that if the Iranian people do not overthrow their rulers, then Israel will not help with Iran’s critical water crisis.
The optics are as clear as can be: You want water? Play ball. Again, Israel is seen to be using using food as a weapon.
Even when, astoundingly, there was no pressing need to do so.
Even when no one asked or expected Israel to get involved in Iran’s water crisis.
Even when, more astoundingly, Netanyahu’s chances of success of fomenting a revolution in totalitarian Iran with a speech are all but nil.
Even were there some expectation that Israel should get involved in Iran’s water crisis, where is the realism? Is the whole population of Iran suddenly going to rise up against the brutal regime because the prime minister of Israel utters a few words?
Is Israel capable of handling a crisis in a country roughly 30 times bigger than Israel?
Netanyahu said in his video address to Iran:
“The thirst for water in Iran is only matched by the thirst for freedom. So here is the great news: The moment your country is free, Israel’s top water experts will flood into every Iranian city bringing cutting-edge technology and know-how.”
Let’s see. It took decades for the Russian Revolution to gather steam. The American Revolution took less, but still between five and ten years (depending on how you count), with sentiment for independence building long before that. In Iran, any squeak of revolutionary fervor is brutally suppressed.
Not to mention, if someone is threatened with thirst now, a distant promise by a country that just attacked you means nothing.
Netanyahu’s attempt to highlight Israel’s phenomenal success in water management and desalinization in arid region came off, at best, as awkward; at worst, as another insensitive exploitation of food in the face of other people’s suffering.
The common people suffering from thirst in Iran do not care to hear from Netanyahu that Israel leads other nations in the proportion of water it recycles — they need water! — and the rulers of Iran couldn’t care less what Israel has achieved in water management.
Netanyahu said to the people of Iran, who, according to JTA, have suffered five consecutive years of drought, leaving the country at risk of running out of water this fall:
“The tyrants of Tehran preferred sending hundreds of billions of dollars not to you, [but] to Hamas, Hezbollah to the Houthis — instead of funding your hospitals, your schools and your roads.
“It doesn’t have to be this way. I urge you to be bold and brave — to dare to dream. Take risks for freedom, for your futures, for your families. It’s worth it!”
These are good words. They remind us of the old Radio Free Europe that broadcast accurate news and messages of hope to the many peoples imprisoned behind the USSR’s Iron Curtain.
However, words like this get lost when, in the very same message, the prime minister raises the specter of conditioning water supplies on unrealistic, dangerous action.
It is one thing to pursue policies that one thinks are essential for Israel’s survival even if the rest of the world denounces them.
It is quite something else to be tone deaf to world opinion over humanitarian aid.
The utter animus that enemies of Israel express, and the one-sidedness that friends (or former friends) of Israel increasingly adopt, can harden Israelis into indifference to world opinion. Why should we Israelis pay attention to people who ignore our existential plight?
But diplomats are supposed to know better. The chief diplomat, the prime minister, is supposed to know best of all. Being tone deaf is not a strategy.
