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.

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

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


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.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share