Right Web

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

Whither Netanyahu-Obama?

Last week’s diplomatic dance between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama did little more than to give the Israeli government more time to avoid making the hard decisions needed to achieve peace with the Palestinians.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Inter Press Service

What led the Middle East hit parade last week was less the chords struck harmoniously at the White House last Tuesday by two deft diplomatic dancers than the slick dance routine performed by a squad of Israeli soldiers patrolling the streets of the occupied Palestinian city of Hebron.

Israeli Television collated scores of reports by news channels worldwide about the YouTube clip titled “Batallion 50 Rock the Hebron Casbah.”

During the Muslim call to prayer heard in the background, six soldiers in full battle-gear break into a rendering of the hit song “Tik Tok”. Hand-in-hand, they dance in pairs before smoothly skipping back into patrol mode. Not amused, the Israeli army threatens to discipline the dancing soldiers.

With the clip stealing the show on the eve of his much-anticipated fifth encounter with U.S. President Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, was probably not amused either.

After all, aren’t the streets of Hebron a sobering reminder — especially to his ultra-nationalist flank — of how once before (in his previous premiership in the late ’90s), Netanyahu succumbed to U.S. pressure designed to limit Israel’s control over the occupied West Bank.

That partial withdrawal from Hebron in 1997 is the only time Netanyahu has made any tangible move to advance peace.

What Obama wanted to know was precisely whether now, 13 years later, the Israeli leader is ready for another move to help realise the U.S. peace vision.

After their talks in the Oval Office, Netanyahu declared he intends “concrete steps” in “the coming weeks” to move Israeli-Palestinian peace “further along in a very robust way.”

Obama seemed ready to believe him — or at least, projected the impression that he does.

“I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace. I think he’s willing to take risks for peace… Now more than ever is the time for us to seize on that vision,” Obama said. “We expect the proximity talks to lead to direct talks. I believe the government of Israel is prepared to engage in such direct talks.”

But, the President added, “That’s going to mean some tough choices. And there are going to be times where he and I will have robust discussions about what kind of choices need to be made.”

Both men were at pains to demonstrate that the acrimony that had marked their previous meeting in March was dead and buried. Statements were well- rehearsed, well synchronized, nothing seemingly out of step in a way that had recently led the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, to describe U.S.-Israeli relations as having undergone a “tectonic shift”.

No strident notes. Equally, no specific reference to the need for Netanyahu to extend his self-proclaimed partial settlement freeze, no fixed time-table for realising the vision of the two-state solution, and nothing about recently announced disruptive Israeli settlement forays into occupied East Jerusalem.

Iran’s nuclear challenge was on the table. But beyond generalities about Israel’s security, what the two leaders didn’t spell out was what each expects the other to deliver: Obama to act against Iran, Netanyahu to curb the settlements and reach a full arrangement about the future of the West Bank.

Some, like Aluf Benn, the Harretz diplomatic correspondent, refer to this as some sort of grand bargain: “This deal, foiling Iran’s nuclearisation in exchange for stopping the settlements, has been on the agenda since both were elected. Each knows what the other wants, but is trying to lower the price.

“Now that Obama has made his move on the Iranian front, it’s Netanyahu’s turn to give something on the Palestinian front,” Benn wrote.

For all the big words and big commitments, the Palestinians believe Netanyahu is still falling far short of striking the right notes needed to advance the final U.S. peace score.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told IPS bluntly, “Netanyahu must choose between settlements and peace. We want to resume direct negotiations, but the problem is that the land supposed to be a Palestinian state is being eaten up by settlements.”

That was highlighted by the Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, which in a new report issued Tuesday revealed that settlements now control nearly half of all West Bank land.

Also Tuesday, the New York Times produced fresh evidence about how, quietly but resolutely, evangelical Christian groups in the U.S. are entrenching the settlers, using tax-exempt donations.

The Times identifies public records in the U.S. and Israel which reveal that at least 40 such groups have collected over 200 million dollars in tax-deductible gifts over the past decade for settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

“The result is a surprising juxtaposition,” the Times commented. “As the U.S. government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state, the U.S. Treasury helps sustain the settlements on donations to support them.”

For all these discordant reports, Obama may have agreed to give Netanyahu some months leeway before taxing him with the “tough choices” he’d made a point of mentioning in their joint news conference.

But, is the President actually leading the dance?

Having enjoyed for the first time the Obama White House, Netanyahu may feel free to use the rest of the summer interlude (his 10-month settlement moratorium concludes at the end of September) to change partners.

And, to find the right kind of steps to keep his domestic partners on the far Right from straying from him.

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