Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Obama Peace Vision Sparks New Disputes

In his Middle East speech, Barack Obama offered policy prescriptions that largely toed the Israeli line, making Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aggressive reaction all the more stultifying.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Inter Press Service

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states." The seemingly neutral and quasi-consensual principle laid out by U.S. President Barack Obama in his May 19 policy address on the current state of affairs in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region was all the more harmless that it was buried in the last quarter of his speech.

Yet, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately took to the stage – even before his arrival to Washington for his much anticipated meeting at the White House – and bluntly dismissed the 1967 borders as "indefensible".

Reports abounded in the Israeli media of a new crisis of confidence in U.S.-Israel relations, of the rekindled flames of mutual dislike between the two leaders, of a "furious" telephone exchange between Netanyahu and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the eve of the summit. The body language at the meeting at the Oval Room was also painstakingly dissected.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak tried to strike a more reassuring and optimistic note when declaring that the Friday meeting "was a lot less dramatic than it appeared," while stressing that the gaps between the two leaders were smaller than they seemed. Barak added, "I think the Americans know well the nuances of our positions."

The Netanyahu statement from his spokesman in the U.S. reiterating that "the differences of opinion are among friends" didn't assuage Israeli concerns back home. With such allies who needs enemies, caustically noted Israeli commentators.

What are those "nuances of positions" that provoked the ire of the Israeli Premier? After all, as a disconcerted U.S. State Department official stressed, Obama's speech was "good for Israel – and, certainly good for Netanyahu's vision of Israel."

Didn’t the President go out of his way to firmly reject the Palestinian endeavour for UN-endorsed recognition of statehood without negotiations as de-legitimisation campaign of Israel that "won't create an independent state"? He demanded that the Palestinians explain the recent reconciliation agreement between the nationalist Fatah movement and Hamas and provide "a credible answer" to "the legitimate questions" raised by the Islamic movement's refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist.

Obama also adopted the Netanyahu security doctrine of a "non-militarised" Palestine and a "phased withdrawal" from the occupied territories? And, he embraced Netanyahu's old-new credo of a "Jewish State".

Besides, what Obama didn't spell out was also good for the Israeli leader. He didn't demand a renewed freeze on settlement construction in the occupied West Bank in the first place. He actually mentioned the settlement issue in one quick sentence while construction of 1,500 housing units was officially approved in occupied East Jerusalem.

And, he didn't even mention the Israeli Left's peace advocacy credo, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative that proposes an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict in exchange for the Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories (the 1967 lines), a recognition of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees.

So what was wrong with Netanyahu, asked some Israelis, flabbergasted at the prospect of increasing alienation, what's more, from their country's strongest ally?

Netanyahu seems to have wanted to create an artificial dispute, purposefully ignoring the Obama "land swap" and "Jewish State" principles of peace. What are borders based on the pre-1967 ceasefire lines with territorial swaps if not the realisation that, in any future agreement, Israel will retain major settlement blocks that have taken hold in the West Bank over the past 40-plus years.

And, if Israel is to be recognised "as a Jewish State and the homeland of the Jewish people", it signifies to the Palestinians that their refugees will return to Palestine, not to Israel, a key Israeli demand.

"I don't think that the President said it was necessary to return to the 1967 lines, but rather that we need to start the discussion based on the 1967 borders," said Barak.

The real problem for Netanyahu – and for his centrist opposition – lies precisely in the synchronisation of the elements of a peace deal. Obama suggested that future negotiations should grapple first with the security and territorial dimension of the conflict. Other core issues, "the future of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees", should be broached at a later stage.

Israelis fear that these principles will create a de facto interim agreement with no end of conflict and demands in sight. "Instead of presenting the 1967 borders as the end of the process, Obama made them its start. Instead of tying them to the end of demands and the end of the conflict, they were tied to greater demands and continued conflict," columnist Ari Shavit bemoaned in the liberal daily Haaretz.

Netanyahu outflanked his right-wing coalition by implying that he stands further to the Right. Wrapped in the flag of national dismay, with the Right firmly united behind him, he's trying to hamstring the Obama peace principles by testing the limitation of their effectiveness.

It's a laborious enough task to present a coherent U.S. doctrine in the face of the indecisive upheaval convulsing the Arab world. And, with raising expectations of recognition of Palestine, with or without U.S. approval, it might prove even harder to establish a coherent peace vision – especially if no clear plan of action is advanced by the U.S. before September as a basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace-making and Palestinian state-building. That's what Netanyahu is counting on.

It is often said that attack is the best form of defence. Netanyahu went a step further in implementing the proverbial adage. He tackled his host on his own home turf. The almost offensive conduct was designed to neutralise the broad U.S. vision of national and individual self-determination for all the peoples of the region in the hope that he will eventually reduce the vision of Palestinian self- determination to mere tactical manoeuvring.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.


Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.


Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.


A military historian, Kimberly Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, where she has promoted the continuation of U.S. war in Afghanistan.


A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share