By HASAN ABU NIMAH
For many years, people in our region believed that only the United States had the power and the means to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict. Year after year, actually decade after decade, of total American adoption of the Israeli illegal position were not able to shake that belief.
The Palestinian Authority, the Arab states, the European Union and many more continue to presume that if this conflict has to end one day, only the US can end it. For that reason, we have all got accustomed to accepting that Washington alone holds the keys. All have been patiently, and quite helplessly, waiting for Washington to use them. All, including the United Nations, have absolved themselves of any responsibility vis-à-vis this century-old struggle, convinced that the resolution of this conflict is Washington’s responsibility. This was accompanied by the complacent assumption that Washington has always been waiting for the right circumstances and for the mediation efforts to yield results.
Time has shown that the “right circumstances” for the US purposes would never come. The striking reality is that the chances for any meaningful US action are diminishing.
It is true that the United States is the superpower upon which Israel depends entirely and therefore could not challenge its positions without fearing adverse consequences. But the American-Israeli relations are more complex than just that. It is still the case that no American can run for high office, particularly the presidency, without first securing the support of the Israel lobby. The lobby remains very powerful and highly influential despite significant cracks.
Without any doubt, the United States has the means to discipline Israel by making it comply with the rules of international law, and therefore compel Israel to accept a settlement of its conflict with its neighbours. But without any doubt, also, no American president so far has been willing to risk his political future by confronting Israel.
The obstacles in the way are usually many. The Congress is one of them. The question, therefore, is who needs who? Is it the US that needs Israeli support or vice versa? Obviously it is the US. The huge financial and political aid that Washington offers Israel on regular basis could not be used as an instrument of pressure because it is originally offered as a price; it could not therefore be used to exact an opposite price.
Americans who compete for the top job at the White House need Israel lobby support. When they plan for a second term, they often watch every move in their first term, lest it would anger Israel or the lobby and thus jeopardise the president’s chance for a second term in office. This clearly applies to Obama now, and explains his acquiescence to Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated defiance of America’s policies towards the region.
A look at the long history of the conflict reveals that one American president after another openly took the Israeli side while pretending to honestly broker an Arab-Israeli peace settlement. Yet the belief that only America can achieve an historic breakthrough was never shaken in the Arab world.
When Obama was elected president, peculiar euphoria swept the Arab, and to a certain extent the Muslim, world that this finally is the president who would stand by the side of justice and would, therefore, end America’s trailing behind Israeli aggression and lawlessness. No amount of clear signals otherwise were enough to check the rising tide of optimism that the Obama promise of “hope and change” meant Arabs and Muslims as well.
Although Obama’s Cairo speech in January 2009 was hollow, it was hailed as the long-awaited beginning of that change. But there was no change from the way the Bush administration had handled this historic conflict. Bush was totally on Israel’s side and so is Obama. “Pro-Israel” Democrats can proclaim Obama to be “the most pro-Israel president ever”, says MJ Rosenberg (Political Correction, July 7), reminding that Bush was the last president to hold that title.
But why does Obama deserve this title? Simply because he lost every battle he tried with Netanyahu. Right from the beginning, Netanyahu rejected every American demand put to him, and his rejectionism had been rewarded.
Netanyahu got away with everything he wanted, building more settlements, expanding Jerusalem colonisation, evicting Palestinians from their homes to build recreation parks, maintaining a punitive siege on one million and a half Palestinians in Gaza and blocking every effort to resume meaningful talks while persistently calling for resuming direct negotiations.
The proximity talks, which made a second start two months ago, following massive American pressure on the Palestinians - the first attempt collapsed before it even started - were not meant to achieve results.
No one in his right mind could have expected results. Even the PA president and other advisers of his admitted no sign of progress in response to a White House signal that they were achieving something. To move from sterile proximity talks to direct talks, as Obama is demanding, is another mockery. But again, it could not be possible that anyone would expect any results, neither does it seem that results are the goal of such negotiations.
The goal is to enable a failed US policy for the region to claim any success. This could not be accomplished without additional appeasement of Netanyahu. This is what Netanyahu returned home with from his last visit to the White House, without agreeing to one single demand.
“Each leader [Obama and Netanyahu] accomplished what he needed,” says MJ Rosenberg, adding: “Netanyahu goes home looking far stronger than when he departed and without making any compromises that would offend his right flank. Obama can inform the chairs of the House and Senate campaign committees that they can tell disgruntled donors that his relations with Netanyahu are good as gold.”
That is what really matters. Not the future of the region, not stability, not even peace, not Gaza, not the rule of law, not the fate of the Palestinians, not the occupation, not the colonisation of Palestinian lands, not Lebanon, not another war against Iran. All that does not matter. What matters is Obama’s future and whether he will return to the White House for a second term with the help of the lobby.
Source: The Jordan Times, 14 July. 2010 The Palestinian Authority, the Arab states, the European Union and many more continue to presume that if this conflict has to end one day, only the US can end it. For that reason, we have all got accustomed to accepting that Washington alone holds the keys. All have been patiently, and quite helplessly, waiting for Washington to use them. All, including the United Nations, have absolved themselves of any responsibility vis-à-vis this century-old struggle, convinced that the resolution of this conflict is Washington’s responsibility. This was accompanied by the complacent assumption that Washington has always been waiting for the right circumstances and for the mediation efforts to yield results.
Time has shown that the “right circumstances” for the US purposes would never come. The striking reality is that the chances for any meaningful US action are diminishing.
It is true that the United States is the superpower upon which Israel depends entirely and therefore could not challenge its positions without fearing adverse consequences. But the American-Israeli relations are more complex than just that. It is still the case that no American can run for high office, particularly the presidency, without first securing the support of the Israel lobby. The lobby remains very powerful and highly influential despite significant cracks.
Without any doubt, the United States has the means to discipline Israel by making it comply with the rules of international law, and therefore compel Israel to accept a settlement of its conflict with its neighbours. But without any doubt, also, no American president so far has been willing to risk his political future by confronting Israel.
The obstacles in the way are usually many. The Congress is one of them. The question, therefore, is who needs who? Is it the US that needs Israeli support or vice versa? Obviously it is the US. The huge financial and political aid that Washington offers Israel on regular basis could not be used as an instrument of pressure because it is originally offered as a price; it could not therefore be used to exact an opposite price.
Americans who compete for the top job at the White House need Israel lobby support. When they plan for a second term, they often watch every move in their first term, lest it would anger Israel or the lobby and thus jeopardise the president’s chance for a second term in office. This clearly applies to Obama now, and explains his acquiescence to Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated defiance of America’s policies towards the region.
A look at the long history of the conflict reveals that one American president after another openly took the Israeli side while pretending to honestly broker an Arab-Israeli peace settlement. Yet the belief that only America can achieve an historic breakthrough was never shaken in the Arab world.
When Obama was elected president, peculiar euphoria swept the Arab, and to a certain extent the Muslim, world that this finally is the president who would stand by the side of justice and would, therefore, end America’s trailing behind Israeli aggression and lawlessness. No amount of clear signals otherwise were enough to check the rising tide of optimism that the Obama promise of “hope and change” meant Arabs and Muslims as well.
Although Obama’s Cairo speech in January 2009 was hollow, it was hailed as the long-awaited beginning of that change. But there was no change from the way the Bush administration had handled this historic conflict. Bush was totally on Israel’s side and so is Obama. “Pro-Israel” Democrats can proclaim Obama to be “the most pro-Israel president ever”, says MJ Rosenberg (Political Correction, July 7), reminding that Bush was the last president to hold that title.
But why does Obama deserve this title? Simply because he lost every battle he tried with Netanyahu. Right from the beginning, Netanyahu rejected every American demand put to him, and his rejectionism had been rewarded.
Netanyahu got away with everything he wanted, building more settlements, expanding Jerusalem colonisation, evicting Palestinians from their homes to build recreation parks, maintaining a punitive siege on one million and a half Palestinians in Gaza and blocking every effort to resume meaningful talks while persistently calling for resuming direct negotiations.
The proximity talks, which made a second start two months ago, following massive American pressure on the Palestinians - the first attempt collapsed before it even started - were not meant to achieve results.
No one in his right mind could have expected results. Even the PA president and other advisers of his admitted no sign of progress in response to a White House signal that they were achieving something. To move from sterile proximity talks to direct talks, as Obama is demanding, is another mockery. But again, it could not be possible that anyone would expect any results, neither does it seem that results are the goal of such negotiations.
The goal is to enable a failed US policy for the region to claim any success. This could not be accomplished without additional appeasement of Netanyahu. This is what Netanyahu returned home with from his last visit to the White House, without agreeing to one single demand.
“Each leader [Obama and Netanyahu] accomplished what he needed,” says MJ Rosenberg, adding: “Netanyahu goes home looking far stronger than when he departed and without making any compromises that would offend his right flank. Obama can inform the chairs of the House and Senate campaign committees that they can tell disgruntled donors that his relations with Netanyahu are good as gold.”
That is what really matters. Not the future of the region, not stability, not even peace, not Gaza, not the rule of law, not the fate of the Palestinians, not the occupation, not the colonisation of Palestinian lands, not Lebanon, not another war against Iran. All that does not matter. What matters is Obama’s future and whether he will return to the White House for a second term with the help of the lobby.
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment