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

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

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share