Author: Mohammad Ghazal
Source: The Jordan Times
Date: 2009-04-23
His Majesty King Abdullah's meeting with US President Barack Obama was the focus of editorials in the country's press on Wednesday, with many highlighting the two countries' commitment to the two-state solution as key to ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The editorials also addressed Obama’s support for the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, emphasising King Abdullah's "Pan-Arab mission" to convey a unified Arab stance to the US administration. In remarks to the press Tuesday following his meeting with King Abdullah, Obama said he is a strong supporter of a two-state solution, pinpointing his country's support for the Arab peace overture, which offers Israel normalisation with the Arab world in return for withdrawal from Arab territories it occupied in 1967. "The Arab Peace Initiative is very constructive," he said.
Al Rai's editorial said the Monarch's meeting with Obama was the focus of Arab and international media as King Abdullah was at the White House to convey the unified Arab position aiming to resolve the decades-old Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
In its editorial, the newspaper shed light on the King's effective role in helping bring about peace in the region and urging the US to be effectively involved in finding a solution to the conflict, reporting that Obama's invitation to Egyptian, Palestinian and Israeli leaders to visit Washington for separate talks clearly shows the positive outcome of the King's effort.
Ad Dustour newspaper described the visit of King Abdullah, the first Arab leader to hold talks with Obama, as historic, saying it comes at a crucial time.
The daily emphasised that Obama’s commitment to the Arab peace plan and the two-state solution is of great significance as it comes at a time witnessing the rise of an extremist right-wing government in Israel. This goverment has refused to recognise Palestinians as peace partners and rejected the Annapolis accords, under which Palestinian-Israeli negotiations were relaunched to include final status issues, such as the fate of Jerusalem and a solution to the refugee problem, added the paper.
Al Arab Al Yawm's editorial said Obama’s decision to stress his commitment to the two-state solution and to welcome the Arab Peace Initiative is a significant indicator of the importance of the King's trip.
The newspaper added that Obama's clear endorsement of the two-state solution is a response to recent remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who have both shown opposition to the Arab Peace Initiative and the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state.
____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Shifting US position on Israel an opportunity for Arabs - analysts
Author: Mohammad Ghazal
Source: The Jordan Times
Date: 2009-04-23
Arabs should build on the US stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict declared by President Barack Obama at his meeting with His Majesty King Abdullah Tuesday, analysts said Wednesday.
Obama's strong support for the two-state solution, which envisages the creation of an independent Palestinian state, and his commitment to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which he described Tuesday as a "very constructive start", are positive indictators that Arabs should build on to demonstrate their pro-peace stance in light of the Israeli rejection of the two-state solution and the peace overture, the analysts noted.
"The US policy is in the process of being formulated and Arabs should highlight their peace-loving stance to the international community and the US administration in particular… For the first time there are clear differences between the US and Israel," writer and political analyst Nasouh Majali told The Jordan Times Wednesday.
Israel's position which rejects the two-state solution and peace efforts is being exposed to the rest of the world, said Majali, adding that Arabs, led by King Abdullah, want to create an international position that is supportive of peace, thus placing Israel under pressure to comply to the will of the world community.
"Israel cannot play a political game for a long time against the will of America and the Arabs. Israel will find itself in a position against the whole world if it goes on with its hardline policies," Majali stressed.
On Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman branded the Arab Peace Initiative as “dangerous" because it requires the Jewish state to allow Palestinian refugees to return to its borders, Agence France-Presse reported.
Lieberman has refused to endorse the 2007 US-backed deal agreed to during a conference in Annapolis, Maryland, to relaunch negotiations with the Palestinians.
His hardline position, coupled with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to publicly endorse the creation of a Palestinian state, has raised fears that Israel's new Cabinet is on a collision course with Obama's administration, which has vowed to push the faltering Middle East peace talks, according to the agency.
Political science professor at Yarmouk University Mohammad Momani said it is of great significance that the Arabs support Obama and commit to the peace plan.
"It is important not to give Israel any excuse to try to undermine the American determination and it is important that the Arabs continue to support the peace proposal and commit to peace, as otherwise Israel will say there is no partner on the Arab side," Momani said in a telephone interview.
It is also important to engage and involve pro-Israel institutions in the US in the process, said Momani, referring to the King's recent meeting with Jewish religious leaders in Washington.
Fares Breizat, political analyst and pollster, said the Arabs should "stick to their guns" and renew their commitment to the peace initiative to show the world and the US in particular that Israel is not serious about peace.
"Israel has managed to process the peace process. Israeli politicians have become masters in processing the process and society has learned to live with it and accommodate the status quo. On another front, the Arabs should lobby Brussels, London, Paris, Moscow and the UN General Assembly to expose Israel's shallow commitment to peace in the region," said Breizat in an e-mail sent to The Jordan Times.
More work must be done on American public opinion to create some sort of balance between the Israeli and the Arab narratives, said the pollster, adding that Arabs must get involved and remain persistent in lobbying Washington and the political community inside the Beltway.
Urging the Arabs to make use of what he said was a "less-biased" American stance towards Israel, MP Mamdouh Abbadi said: “The Arabs should make use of this fact. It is a big gain that they should build on."
"The ball is in the court of the Arabs at this stage and they should make use of that as indictors from the US are positive on this issue," said Abbadi.
But former Lower House speaker Abdul Latif Arabiyat criticised Obama's approach and expressed pessimism about a speedy solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
"The Arabs gave grand concessions and offered all that they could offer through the peace overture and Obama is asking for more, deeming the initiative only a start," Arabiyat said.
"As long as Israel is under the protection of the US, the Israelis will never change and they will not give anything and that should be taken into consideration," the Islamist added.
Israel's inflexibility and its rejection of peace are being exposed to the entire world, Arabiyat said, and only full support by the Arabs, the West and the US in particular for the peace initiative will further expose Israel's stubborn position, forcing it to change.
"Statements by Obama are meant to waste time and delay a solution to the conflict…I do not expect anything to happen in the near future unless the US stops protecting Israel and being its absolute supporter," Arabiyat told The Jordan Times.
____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
Source: The Jordan Times
Date: 2009-04-23
Arabs should build on the US stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict declared by President Barack Obama at his meeting with His Majesty King Abdullah Tuesday, analysts said Wednesday.
Obama's strong support for the two-state solution, which envisages the creation of an independent Palestinian state, and his commitment to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which he described Tuesday as a "very constructive start", are positive indictators that Arabs should build on to demonstrate their pro-peace stance in light of the Israeli rejection of the two-state solution and the peace overture, the analysts noted.
"The US policy is in the process of being formulated and Arabs should highlight their peace-loving stance to the international community and the US administration in particular… For the first time there are clear differences between the US and Israel," writer and political analyst Nasouh Majali told The Jordan Times Wednesday.
Israel's position which rejects the two-state solution and peace efforts is being exposed to the rest of the world, said Majali, adding that Arabs, led by King Abdullah, want to create an international position that is supportive of peace, thus placing Israel under pressure to comply to the will of the world community.
"Israel cannot play a political game for a long time against the will of America and the Arabs. Israel will find itself in a position against the whole world if it goes on with its hardline policies," Majali stressed.
On Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman branded the Arab Peace Initiative as “dangerous" because it requires the Jewish state to allow Palestinian refugees to return to its borders, Agence France-Presse reported.
Lieberman has refused to endorse the 2007 US-backed deal agreed to during a conference in Annapolis, Maryland, to relaunch negotiations with the Palestinians.
His hardline position, coupled with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to publicly endorse the creation of a Palestinian state, has raised fears that Israel's new Cabinet is on a collision course with Obama's administration, which has vowed to push the faltering Middle East peace talks, according to the agency.
Political science professor at Yarmouk University Mohammad Momani said it is of great significance that the Arabs support Obama and commit to the peace plan.
"It is important not to give Israel any excuse to try to undermine the American determination and it is important that the Arabs continue to support the peace proposal and commit to peace, as otherwise Israel will say there is no partner on the Arab side," Momani said in a telephone interview.
It is also important to engage and involve pro-Israel institutions in the US in the process, said Momani, referring to the King's recent meeting with Jewish religious leaders in Washington.
Fares Breizat, political analyst and pollster, said the Arabs should "stick to their guns" and renew their commitment to the peace initiative to show the world and the US in particular that Israel is not serious about peace.
"Israel has managed to process the peace process. Israeli politicians have become masters in processing the process and society has learned to live with it and accommodate the status quo. On another front, the Arabs should lobby Brussels, London, Paris, Moscow and the UN General Assembly to expose Israel's shallow commitment to peace in the region," said Breizat in an e-mail sent to The Jordan Times.
More work must be done on American public opinion to create some sort of balance between the Israeli and the Arab narratives, said the pollster, adding that Arabs must get involved and remain persistent in lobbying Washington and the political community inside the Beltway.
Urging the Arabs to make use of what he said was a "less-biased" American stance towards Israel, MP Mamdouh Abbadi said: “The Arabs should make use of this fact. It is a big gain that they should build on."
"The ball is in the court of the Arabs at this stage and they should make use of that as indictors from the US are positive on this issue," said Abbadi.
But former Lower House speaker Abdul Latif Arabiyat criticised Obama's approach and expressed pessimism about a speedy solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
"The Arabs gave grand concessions and offered all that they could offer through the peace overture and Obama is asking for more, deeming the initiative only a start," Arabiyat said.
"As long as Israel is under the protection of the US, the Israelis will never change and they will not give anything and that should be taken into consideration," the Islamist added.
Israel's inflexibility and its rejection of peace are being exposed to the entire world, Arabiyat said, and only full support by the Arabs, the West and the US in particular for the peace initiative will further expose Israel's stubborn position, forcing it to change.
"Statements by Obama are meant to waste time and delay a solution to the conflict…I do not expect anything to happen in the near future unless the US stops protecting Israel and being its absolute supporter," Arabiyat told The Jordan Times.
____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Still Waiting for Change
Author:
Source: Syria Today
Date: 2009-April
US officials have racked up an impressive amount of frequent flyer points dropping in on Damascus of late. Since moving into the White House in late January, US President Barack Obama has given the green light to a high-profile engagement of Syria. Damascus is now hailed as a ‘key’ to solving the Middle East’s problems, former adversaries talk of ‘common ground’ without blushing, and opinion writers the world over wax lyrical about a change in the region’s tectonic plates.
Most seasoned Syria observers, however, remain highly cautious. Despite the apparent volte-face in US policy towards Damascus, they question what has fundamentally changed in the country’s long, complicated relationship with America.
“The Obama administration is not planning any revolutionary change in US policy toward the Middle East,” Joshua Landis, co-director of the University of Oklahoma’s Center for Middle East Studies, said. “Rather, it appears to have set its sights on preserving the status quo and seeking to attenuate radicalisation through engagement and the proffering of small carrots, such as repaired diplomatic relations with Syria and the incremental lifting of sanctions.”
Senator Benjamin Cardin kicked off a string of recent US visits to Syria when he touched down in Damascus on January 18. He was followed by Congressman Adam Smith on January 31, who was appointed to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence the day after returning to the America.
US Senator and former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry spent four hours with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on February 21, becoming the most senior US official to visit the country since Nancy Pelosi went shopping for pearls in Souq Hamidiyeh in 2007. On February 26, Syrian Ambassador to Washington Imad Moustapha met with Jeffrey Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs at the State Department. A few days later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shook hands with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mu’allem at a fundraising summit for Gaza in Sharm el-Sheikh.
The most high-level meeting came when Feltman, accompanied by the National Security Council’s Middle East and North Africa director Daniel Shapiro, met with Mu’allem in Damascus on March 7. Feltman said the meeting was “constructive”. He said Syria and America shared “common ground” and went to great lengths to stress he had not come to Damascus with a list of demands, but rather to open the channels of communication and learn Syria’s views.
His soothing tones have been echoed by Syrian officials.
“There are no problems with the American people and we aim to have good ties with the United States which has an important role to play in finding solutions to the Middle East’s crises,” Suleiman Haddad, chairman of the Foreign and Arab Affairs Committee in the Syrian parliament, said. “We are looking for fair American sponsorship of the peace process with Israel to achieve stability and security in the region.”
Back to the future
All of which is a far cry from the policies of former US President George W. Bush, who shunned Damascus and tried to isolate Syria internationally. His administration publicly talked of regime change – dubbing Syria “low hanging fruit” – and designated the country as an adjunct to the infamous ‘axis of evil’.
Washington’s tone towards Damascus is audibly different. But Syrian analysts, both inside and outside the country, play down the likelihood of any major breakthroughs in the points of difference dividing Damascus and Washington.
Rime Allaf, an associate fellow at Chatham House in London, said the choice of President Obama’s last two envoys indicates “he is more willing to play by George W. Bush’s rules than to turn over a new page”.
Feltman, the US ambassador to Lebanon at the time of the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, took a confrontational line against Damascus in that role and made no effort to hide his enthusiastic support for the pro-American March 14 group. Shapiro was instrumental in drafting the Syrian Accountability Act (SAA), the most comprehensive of any US sanctions effort against Syria.
“Had President Obama wanted constructive dialogue, he could have chosen people with less baggage,” Allaf said. “In the long term, I am sure the differences can be resolved, but the new administration has been more words than action so far. It’s necessary for both sides to concentrate on diplomatic communication, rather than on measures which merely affect normal people and have no bearing on the political decisions of either country.”
Old problems remain
While Obama’s presidency has generated much hope of a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict, his list of complaints against Damascus mirrors that of his predecessor. Central among these is ending support for groups including Hezbollah and Hamas, organisations the US considers terrorists but which Syria holds to be legitimate national resistance movements. Accusations over the Iraqi border remain. Moving Syria away from Iran is also enthusiastically announced as a key foreign policy objective.
Nor has Obama’s diplomatic thaw produced any tangible results. Claims by Syrian sources that sanctions had been eased in early February after the US Department of Commerce approved a licence to sell Boeing 747 parts to Syria are in fact unfounded, as components that will maintain aviation safety are legally exempt from the SAA. This transaction can certainly be seen as a US gesture towards Syria, as can the Treasury Department’s decision to facilitate the transfer of SYP 23.5m (USD 500,000) to the Damascus-based children’s cancer charity BASMA. But Damascus still does not have a US ambassador and Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell has failed to call in on Syria despite touring the region extensively. At the same time, Syria has announced it will not end its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, or have its relationship with Iran dictated to it by a third party.
“There are some files between the two sides that will not be easily solved, areas in which neither side wants to surrender its position,” Hamidi Abdullah, a Syrian political analyst based in Damascus, said. “America’s position regarding the national resistance of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories will not change. America has been supportive of Israel since its creation and that is not going to change.”
The upcoming Lebanese elections also present a potential new point of confrontation between Damascus and Washington. How America would react to a Hezbollah win remains unclear. A dispute over the post-election continuation of the Doha Agreement also looms.
The March 14 coalition has said that the deal, which gives the opposition a cabinet veto, will expire with the elections. March 8 opposition groups say the deal is a national unity framework which will continue after the elections whatever the result.
“It seems probable that the US is predicating the return of a US ambassador to Damascus on a favourable outcome to the June 7 elections in Lebanon,” Landis said. “Washington wants to see the establishment of a new March 14 led government in Lebanon.”
Lack of sincerity
Above and beyond this, there are serious doubts in Damascus about the sincerity of America’s commitment to addressing Syrian concerns in the region. Marwan Kabalan, a Syrian political scientist who teaches media and international relations at Damascus University, said US attention on Syria is a means to an end; Obama’s real concern is Iran, rather than a better relationship with Syria in itself, or a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.
“The Americans have never been serious about peace,” Kabalan said. “They were always satisfied with conflict management. They have never wanted to think of it in terms of conflict resolution.”
Kabalan said US interests in the modern Middle East have moved away from the Levant and now are centred in the Gulf.
“The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on for the past 60 years and it can go on for another 60 years,” he said. “US interests are no longer in this area of the Middle East, they have moved to the Gulf, to a nuclear Iran, to oil, Iraq and Pakistan.”
____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
Is Obama Weak?
Author: Tariq Alhomayed
Source: Asharq Al-Awsat
Date: 2009-04-22
After his first foreign trip as president to Europe, Turkey and Latin America, Barack Obama was forced to justify his words and actions in an effort to prove that he is not weak. In the US, Obama’s opponents criticized him for his repeated apologies saying that the president has begun to beg for popularity in Europe and the Arab and Islamic worlds.
Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy described Obama as ‘weak,’ a description that has been repeated by other Europeans, especially with Obama failure to convince the Europeans regarding the Afghanistan file. As for Latin America, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made the most of what Obama said about wanting to listen to others; he gave Obama a book entitled ‘The Open Veins of Latin America’ in the hope that he might read and learn.
Former US president George W. Bush adopted the idea of spreading democracy worldwide in 2004 after having read ‘The Case for Democracy’ by Israeli author Natan Sharansky. Bush liked the symbolic idea of a soldier representing the dictatorship, pointing a gun for a long time at a prisoner representing the nation, but when his arms began to tire, he lowered his weapon and the prisoner escaped. Bush rejoiced thinking that he had found the solution and rushed to preach democracy.
Is Obama like that? Some of his justifications in response to the criticism he received may help us understand, as he said that even if he failed to convince the Europeans to increase the level of their forces in Afghanistan, he succeeded at increasing America’s popularity in Europe, which could help European leaders adopt the positions of their US ally. This indicates that Bush’s unpopularity is what prevented Europe from supporting Washington on a number of issues, whilst the reality of the situation is quite the contrary. Obama will find that many leaders used Bush as an excuse to wash their hands of any matters that they did not want [to be involved in] and that they will change according to a change of interests.
We have France under Sarkozy striving for a role in Iraq after having been at the forefront of the countries against the alliance that Bush wanted to form to invade Iraq. Here’s Iran, which harbors mutual enmity towards the US because of the Iraqi invasion, negotiating with Washington on Iraq! North Korea has not changed its policy of defying the international community with its nuclear program, just like Iran; in fact Tehran is also challenging Obama today with the case of the imprisoned US-Iranian journalist even though Obama extended a hand to Iran and called for engaging in dialogue with it.
Let us recall the early days of the George W. Bush presidency. After Bush’s victory in the 2000 elections, China held an American spy plane and detained its crew, and in March 2001 China also detained a Chinese researcher who was working at an American university. At the time, the American press accused Bush of being weak and demanded a tough response to China. Also at that time, Bush received a letter from the Saudi monarch King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz (the then Crown Prince) in which he threatened severance of ties if Washington did not take a decisive stand regarding the Palestinian Cause. Immediately afterwards, Bush decided to deliver a speech at the United Nations announcing the two-state project.
But then came the 9/11 attacks and Bush transformed into that angry, belligerent man until he left the White House.
The conclusion is that events are what form a leader. Ronald Reagan for example was not the most popular man but he was the person who brought down Communism. Bill Clinton was very popular but he failed to take heed of the Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden threat and pulled out of Somalia after disturbing images of US soldiers [came to light]. Therefore, it is too early to say whether or not Obama is weak.
____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
Source: Asharq Al-Awsat
Date: 2009-04-22
After his first foreign trip as president to Europe, Turkey and Latin America, Barack Obama was forced to justify his words and actions in an effort to prove that he is not weak. In the US, Obama’s opponents criticized him for his repeated apologies saying that the president has begun to beg for popularity in Europe and the Arab and Islamic worlds.
Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy described Obama as ‘weak,’ a description that has been repeated by other Europeans, especially with Obama failure to convince the Europeans regarding the Afghanistan file. As for Latin America, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made the most of what Obama said about wanting to listen to others; he gave Obama a book entitled ‘The Open Veins of Latin America’ in the hope that he might read and learn.
Former US president George W. Bush adopted the idea of spreading democracy worldwide in 2004 after having read ‘The Case for Democracy’ by Israeli author Natan Sharansky. Bush liked the symbolic idea of a soldier representing the dictatorship, pointing a gun for a long time at a prisoner representing the nation, but when his arms began to tire, he lowered his weapon and the prisoner escaped. Bush rejoiced thinking that he had found the solution and rushed to preach democracy.
Is Obama like that? Some of his justifications in response to the criticism he received may help us understand, as he said that even if he failed to convince the Europeans to increase the level of their forces in Afghanistan, he succeeded at increasing America’s popularity in Europe, which could help European leaders adopt the positions of their US ally. This indicates that Bush’s unpopularity is what prevented Europe from supporting Washington on a number of issues, whilst the reality of the situation is quite the contrary. Obama will find that many leaders used Bush as an excuse to wash their hands of any matters that they did not want [to be involved in] and that they will change according to a change of interests.
We have France under Sarkozy striving for a role in Iraq after having been at the forefront of the countries against the alliance that Bush wanted to form to invade Iraq. Here’s Iran, which harbors mutual enmity towards the US because of the Iraqi invasion, negotiating with Washington on Iraq! North Korea has not changed its policy of defying the international community with its nuclear program, just like Iran; in fact Tehran is also challenging Obama today with the case of the imprisoned US-Iranian journalist even though Obama extended a hand to Iran and called for engaging in dialogue with it.
Let us recall the early days of the George W. Bush presidency. After Bush’s victory in the 2000 elections, China held an American spy plane and detained its crew, and in March 2001 China also detained a Chinese researcher who was working at an American university. At the time, the American press accused Bush of being weak and demanded a tough response to China. Also at that time, Bush received a letter from the Saudi monarch King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz (the then Crown Prince) in which he threatened severance of ties if Washington did not take a decisive stand regarding the Palestinian Cause. Immediately afterwards, Bush decided to deliver a speech at the United Nations announcing the two-state project.
But then came the 9/11 attacks and Bush transformed into that angry, belligerent man until he left the White House.
The conclusion is that events are what form a leader. Ronald Reagan for example was not the most popular man but he was the person who brought down Communism. Bill Clinton was very popular but he failed to take heed of the Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden threat and pulled out of Somalia after disturbing images of US soldiers [came to light]. Therefore, it is too early to say whether or not Obama is weak.
____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Israel Blackmails Obama… at the Iranian Level
Author: Elias Harfoush
Source: Al-Hayat
Date: 2009-04-19
____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
Source: Al-Hayat
Date: 2009-04-19
The US's clear stance on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of the two-state solution is not the only point of divergence between Barack Obama's administration and Benjamin Netanyahu's government. Broader than such a disagreement, and in fact strengthening it, is the other point of divergence, that regarding the manner of resolving the nuclear crisis with Iran. It is this divergence that is now being used by neo-extremists in Israel, the likes of Foreign Minister Lieberman, to blackmail Obama on the issue of a solution with the Palestinians. In such people's opinion, what they consider to be "concessions" made by Israel in the past - the latest being the withdrawal from Gaza - have resulted in encouraging Palestinian extremism at the expense of moderate factions, rather than the opposite. In their view, this confirms that Iran is the main force behind such extremism, and that confronting it should have priority, ahead of exerting pressure on Israel.
Obama's predicament here is as follows: how will he manage to bring together a policy of flexibility with Tehran, one that attempts to lure it with diplomacy and politics into retracting its nuclear program and becoming open to more transparency, and a stringent policy with Israel, to make it accept the "goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security", as the US President stated in his recent speech to the Turkish parliament? If the price required to obtain concessions from Israel in the Palestinian issue is to coordinate with it or to follow its policy in the Iranian issue, then can the Obama Administration bear the cost of such a policy in the region, especially if it is to clear the path for a potential Israeli strike against Iran, with the US providing cover or turning a blind eye, and thus to eliminate any hope of holding Palestinian-Israeli negotiations?
There are certainly broad movements on the US scene that now encourage the new administration to take a stringent stance on Netanyahu and his government. Among such movements are Jewish groups, politically at the left of the AIPAC lobbying group, that consider Israel's long-term interest to lie in resolving the conflict based on a permanent settlement that would be accepted by both parties. There are also voices within Israel itself that call for such stringency. One such example is the editor-in-chief of the Haaretz newspaper David Landau who, upon meeting last September with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, told her that the US should "rape" Israel in order to impose the solution upon it. If such had been the stance of this segment of Israelis under Olmert and Livni, we can only imagine the stance they would take after the statements given by Lieberman before US envoy George Mitchell about Israel refusing to offer "further concessions".
Moreover, Obama benefits from a general Arab concern and European desire to make use of his new image in order to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. Yet one must not make the mistake of being overly optimistic. Indeed, opportunities about which it was said that they needed to be made use of in the past are too numerous to be counted, and the means of putting pressure on Israel held by US administrations have always been there - but have always needed someone to exercise them. From cutting aid (three billion dollars a year) or threatening to do so, to refraining from using veto power at the Security Council against decisions that do not agree with Israeli interests, reducing the level of strategic cooperation between the two countries - especially at the military level, or placing restrictions on the low-interest loans obtained by Israel from US banks - most of which goes to the expansion of settlements. It is a long list of steps that the Obama Administration could resort to if it genuinely sought to change the direction of the Israeli government's policy to make it accept the settlement it seeks, one which would be consistent with the text of the Arab Peace Initiative, the Road Map and the decisions reached at the Annapolis Conference.
But does the climate prevailing in the region allow Obama to exercise such pressures, even if that were his intention? Doubtless Iran and its allies taking the initiative of facilitating such a task would add a powerful means of pressure to those already held by US President. It is true that Israel has enough influence inside the United States to paralyze any initiative by the President, as it has proved in the past. However, the wide base of support enjoyed by Obama, including among Jewish Americans, should give him enough room to move, provided that other crises in the region do not hinder such movement.
____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)