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

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

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share