Will Obama Buckle?
There is considerable discussion in Washington about whether President Obama is maintaining or easing the pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu. There is no real evidence pointing to the latter other than the silence from the administration on the just-announced plan to expand the Talmon settlement by some 300 units, a provocation and a test of Obama's resolve. Beyond that is the general fear that the Israeli government has invariably won these battles with previous administrations and the feeling that Obama will, like his predecessors, blink as the lobby quietly (or loudly) pushes back.
Only time will tell whether Obama will choose to prevail; I say "choose" because he holds all the cards in the U.S.-Israel relationship. If he wants an end to settlements, he can make it happen. Beyond that is the simple fact that the largest foreign policy challenge he faces, Iran, is directly linked to Israel-Palestine. Although the usual suspects say that the Iran crisis is a reason to turn away from pressuring Israel over settlements, more fair-minded observers take the opposite approach.
Robert Kaplan, the author and Washington Post columnist, believes that with deft handling the changes taking place in Iran can lead to not only a transformed Iranian relationship with the United States but with Israel as well. He rejects the idea that Israel's salvation lies in alignment with the Saudis and other "sclerotic" Sunni regimes. Instead Israel should look toward Iran-not the current government, but the reformers who will assume power sooner rather than later.
"Iran is so central to the fate of the Middle East that even a partial shift in regime behavior -- an added degree of nuance in its approach to Iraq, Lebanon, Israel or the United States-could dramatically affect the region. Just as a radical Iranian leader can energize the 'Arab street,' an Iranian reformer can energize the emerging but curiously opaque Arab bourgeoisie. This is why the depiction of presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi as but another radical, albeit with a kinder, gentler exterior than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, completely misses the point," he writes.
Kaplan, no softie on matters Middle Eastern (he served in the IDF and was a big Iraq hawk), believes that the United States must seize the opening presented by the post-election developments in Iran.
But he adds a caveat. Neither the United States nor Israel will get anywhere with Iran unless it addresses the issue that inflames Iranians as much as it does Arabs: the issue of Palestine.
"A future behind-the-scenes battle between Sunni Arabs and Shiite Iranians for a silent strategic contract with Israel can be affected only if the United States exerts strong pressure on Israel to cede West Bank territory. Never has there been a better time to push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, even if it requires the collapse of today's Israeli coalition in the process," he writes.
So add Iran to the long list of Middle East countries whose relationship with the United States could be transformed if Obama continues his push for an end to settlements and a Palestinian state.
Actually, it is not so much the substance of what Obama demands that matters as it is the fact that he maintains pressure. Neither Arabs nor Iranians believe that America will ever stand firm in a confrontation with an Israeli government. Quite simply, they believe that Israel owns U.S. policy toward the Muslim world. While this may not be true, it is believed widely enough to prevent America from making much headway with Muslims, whether Shi'ite, Sunni, or secular. It was only with Obama's Cairo speech that they began to consider the possibility that the United States was capable of approaching them with some degree of even-handedness.
Marc Lynch, the professor and Foreign Policy magazine analyst, has another set of reasons why Obama has to maintain the pressure: it is working.
"Obama's pressure has actually been quietly working," he writes. "Lost in the public pyrotechnics over Netanyahu's grudging utterance of an emasculated two state phraseology, Israel has over the last few weeks actually been making serious changes to the checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank and to the blockade of Gaza. The siege of cities such as Nablus has been lifted, major choke-points on key West Bank roads have been significantly opened, and journalists report being able to drive to Jenin without being stopped at a checkpoint. This is new."
He writes: "That Israel has quietly made significant changes to the checkpoints in the last few weeks-after ignoring six years worth of Road Map commitments, snubbing Tony Blair and the Quartet's persistent demands, dismissing the recommendations of the World Bank and other international development agencies, and greatly expanding them even while negotiating during the Annapolis process-suggests that Obama's tough love approach has actually been the only one able to achieve real results. It hasn't gotten much publicity, and it's only a minor thing in the wider context of the occupation, the battle over the settlements, the tortuous politics of the final status issues, the trends in Israeli politics and the disastrous Palestinian political divisions. But it shows that there is already something to show for his policy and that it's worth fighting for."
Lynch adds that Obama can lose these advantages in a heartbeat if he backs down. "Obama has to stand tough on the settlement expansions if he hopes to not squander the tentative gains of the last few weeks-and, more broadly, to see his administration's credibility on Israeli-Palestinian issues shattered forever," he writes. "This is going to be hard to do, since the administration is badly distracted by the events in Iran and might not see this as a good time or an important enough issue to pick a costly fight with Netanyahu. But that would be a huge mistake, because credibility lost here will be very, very hard to recover. Mitchell's abrupt cancellation of a meeting with Netanyahu should only be the beginning: he and Obama need to be ready to take concrete steps to force Israel to back down, or see all of the tentative progress they've seen made evaporate."
He believes Obama will take those steps and "surprise a lot of people."
But, fair is fair. It would not only be Obama who surprises "a lot of people" but Netanyahu as well. It is just possible that he has decided not to go to the mat with Israel's only ally in the world. Perhaps Netanyahu will begin the process of extricating Israel from a situation that is destroying it.
We have heard for years that beyond the rhetoric, Bibi is a pragmatist and not an ideologue, capable of the kind of flexibility Menachem Begin demonstrated when he evacuated every last inch of Sinai in order to achieve a real peace with Egypt that has held for 30 years. Maybe he sees the handwriting on the wall; the occupation cannot be sustained without ultimately losing the support of the United States. As an Israeli patriot, he may just understand that he has to do everything in his power to prevent that from happening. In his heart of hearts, Netanyahu may believe that it would be nice to hold on to the West Bank. But in his brain he knows that maintaining Israel's friendship with the United States, and achieving the kind of peace Begin did, is infinitely nicer.
Check out the Mideast Peace Pulse for more news and blog posts on the Middle East peace process and related issues.
Abraham H. Foxman: Unsettling Signs: The U.S. Takes on Israel on Settlements
While some may believe America has acknowledged a special relationship with Israel, the record of U.S. policy toward many significant issues in the conflict shows something entirely different.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama can cut our aid anytime he wants to as a penalty. Strict limits on the quantity and types of ammunition and spare parts. All he needs is to demonstrate the same resolve that George Bush exercised so stupidly, in defense of the indefensible.
Choose: your settlements or your security. Message delivered privately, so as not to humiliate, unless it's refused. When the predictable payed-for Congress roars in protest, ask them publicly and repeatedly which country they are working for.
He needs to play the hardest hardball here, or he'll get nowhere.
The problem with your posting is there is no basis for the outcome you demand.
Unclear, both in verbiage and meaning. What, pray tell, are you trying to say?
Common morality and rejection of Israeli injustice against Palestinians is a good basis.
End support of the illigitimate and illegal settlements. Lets start there and work up.
Nobody cares what you have to say anymore. You posted so many insults and lies and wild claims that nobody takes you seriously. I'm only frustrated that Huffington Post keeps letting you go around making these meaningless claims.
Maybe we should just ignore you. You've got nothing valuable to contribute to the discussion and replying to you only gives you fodder and serves to distract which is the only reason you do it anyway.
One question and one point:
"If he (read Obama)wants an end to settlements, he can make it happen. "
HOW?
You say that Begin gave back the entire Sinai Peninsula. Yes and no. First of all it served no real strategic value to Isreal. Second, Isreal (like Egypt) is being paid large sums to keep the peace.
Third, Israel covered the Sinai Peninsula with mines and explosives. Aside from small areas along the coast, it is a very dangerous place. Israel refuses to this day to share the location of mines and bombs.
DC has offered one of the more dishonest postings I have read in quite some time. From start to finish it is filled with nonsense.
No one with any sense of a strategic defense would write the Sinai no strategic value to Israel. In 1973 the distance across the Sinai provided Israel with enough time to deal with the Syrians before turning to deal with the Egyptians. Without that strategic depth Israel would not have had time to stop the Syrians.
The Sinai contains an oil field developed by Israel that could have provided much of our oil needs over the next decade, but it was given to the Egyptians, no strings attached. The oil there could have provided a real strategic advantage to Israel.
The Sinai is a dangerous place, but not because Israel mined it and covered it with explosives. The vastness of the Sinai is its only danger, Israeal did not act in the manner described in this falsehood filled filing.
Egyptian resources have never belonged to Israel.
Egyptian resources werent Israels go give. Neither 'with strings attached' nor without.
Well, Buba. You make an accusation of dishonesty, but do not back it up with anything at all.
1. What is dishonest about asking Mr. Rosenberg (a writer I highly respect) to answer "how?"
2. The Sinai Peninsula is vast and mostly empty. Maintaining control over it demands enormous resources. Resources Israel surely wanted to put elsewhere in the longer term.
3. After the 6day War, Israel took control of Egypt's Oil FIelds.
The peace treaty, however,stipulated that Egypt must supply Israel with oil. And you say "no strings attached." Which Egypt still does to this date, albeit at a lower consumption percentage as consumption has gone up -- like everywhere else. So Israel was guaranteed oil from the Sinai, but did not have to maintain the security of the fields and continued production.
Nothing was given, but instead returned. And yes there sure were strings attached to both Israel and to the USA.
Read the 1976 "Memorandum of Agreement between the Governments of the United States of America and Israel - Oil" if you are interested in honesty and truth and all the conditions and strings of that agreement.
What could be more important to Israel than upsetting The USA over "settlements"??? EXISTING!!..That's why they'll never give up all of the settlements! Who wants MORE terrorists on their doorstep...besides the minions of haters here???
Yeah we've heard the "expand or die" argument before. It was a war crime then and it's a war crime now.
well this topic is pointless there is 3 things u cant do in the USA
1) talk about spending less on defense - because we are so damn scared of the world
2) get free medical care - because then u must be a socialist
3) talk about the jews as an adult - cause then u have to be a antisemit
I believe the US has a need to reduce its defense spending. An easy way to do that would be to close US military bases in places where they are not needed. Germany, most European nations, Japan, the list goes on.
Do both.
Either way, continuing to pay for 20% of Israels defense budget is wasteful, pointless and immoral.
Israel has known for years exactly it will take to get a peace deal. What it hasn't had is the will to pay it, because thus far the status quo, despite Israel's compaints, is better than the peace. If Israelis have to start living on the amount of water their arab neighbours do, they'll take a hard and unwelcome hit to their standard of living. Control of land means control of surface and ground water as well as of the aquifers. All are being depleted at greater than replacement rate, which has alreadly meant that coastal aquifers are being contaminated with seawater, making them incrreasingly brackish and eventually unusable.
What has proven to be brackish and unusable are the peace plans offered by the Arabs.
Besides the fact that this is a spurious personal opinion and nothing more, you are merely trying to distract from the issue that Israel is causing major ecological damage to the Middle East with their irresponsible policies. The average Israeli uses at least five times as much water as the average Palestinian and pays a fraction of the cost for it, thanks to the apartheid policies of the occupation.
James Forrestall and George C. Marshall were very, very prescient statesmen back in 1947.
They knew what would indeed come to pass-that the number 1 reason that the U.S. is disliked in the Arab world is the total indulgence of the U.S. government, demonstrated at every turn and in the most servile, pipsqueakish (think of the proverbial elephant frightened to death of the mouse) and transparently hypocritical manner-of the every whim of a regime created by the expropriation and attempted expulsion of an entire indigenous people-over a very short time period- a nation that has had 2 wanted terrorists, and one wanted war criminal as its heads of government in its sixty year history, that burdens its subject population with a system of apartheid more harsh and severe than even the South African variety-a nation that possesses an illegal nuclear arsenal, regularly invades its neighbors and savages its subject civilian population with bombardment by land, air and sea, regularly spies upon its allies and commits assasinations on their soil, in violation of every international treaty, law and protocol.
There are more intra-Arab conflicts each year than Arab-Israeli conflicts. It is nonsense to claim all of the problems in the region revolve around what Israel does or does not do.
Just an FYI, many memebers of comngress have dual citizenship witrh Israel, so does Rahm, I think dual citizenship is why nothing has been done, their loyality is not soley with the us.
I'm compelled to wonder, myself. No other country in the world gets favored by the US like Israel does.
I hold dual citizenship and find it insulting that you question the patriotism of any American.
"if I am an operative for any politician it would be Bibi" - Bubba
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-baitz/a-bright-shining-moment_b_92100.html?show_comment_id=12019174#comment_12019174,
Did Jonathan Pollard have dual citizenship too? I, for one, would prefer my Americans to be uncomplicated in their loyalties. It is a fact that the good citizen, Mr. Pollard received over a million dollars for his efforts on behalf of Israel and the former Mrs. Pollard lives in Israel and receives an Israeli government pension. Look Bucky, no one is questioning your loyalty - from your postings it is clear that your loyalties are to Israel and you maintain your US citizenship for business reasons.
Politithal,boo boo, you need to hit google, bing or something. Your "facts" NEED SOME SERIOUS CHECKING.
SUGGESTION: start with US Liberty.
The attack by Israel on the Liberty was investigated by the Dept. of Defense and determined to be a friendly fire acciddent. Israel paid compensation to the sailors killed or injured in the unfortunate attack. Given the ship had beenw arned and was still in the war zone the mistake was not as surprising as some would want folks to believe.
Really? Because when you actually talk to those who suffered through the onslaught, they tell a different story.
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06022009.html
Israels deliberate shooting of American survivors evacuating the USS Liberty in life rafts isnt 'friendly fire'.
It was cold-blooded murder.
You are not suggesting that the USS Liberty should have gotten Israeli permission in order to mount a few 50 Cal machine guns, are you???? The ship was in international waters and was clearly marked as a US vessel. The "official" US response was to accept the Israeli excuse but unofficially, everyone from Lyndon Johnson to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the Secretary of Defense did NOT buy the opps sorry, big mistake excuse offered by the Israeli government. Tell me as a dual citizen, just how much compensation is enough for a dead American?
Israels attack on the Liberty was successful because the ship was being jammed from transmitting radio signals by Israel RF electronics and radio jammers. For radio jamming to be successful, the Israels would need to have known the frequencies being used by the vessel. To do that they would need to have known its nationality.
Added to the fact the vessel was clearly flagged and the attack took two hours.
The attack was deliberate
The attack on the Liberty is virtually universally believed to be deliberate. The cover up is the single best example of the unhealthy hold the zionists have on the US government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
"MEMORANDUM:
From: Admiral Thomas H. Moorer
Subject: Attack on the USS Liberty June 8, 1967
Date: June 8, 1997
I never believed that the attack on the USS Liberty was a case of mistaken identity. That is ridiculous. ...
And I believe Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying the primary source of acquiring that information the USS Liberty. The result was a wanton sneak attack that left 34 American sailors dead and 171 seriously injured. "
http://www.ussliberty.org/moorer3.htm
Lies are Truth
“The people in the press staff of the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry are talented science fiction writers. Almost nothing that they write has any bearing on reality, and it seems that they use Orwell’s 1984 as a guidebook for news dispatches. All that they need to do is look at the facts on the ground (terminology that was invented by the hasbara commission, more than likely, because it is something different than reality. It has a bit of the sense of imposition of a negative reality that cannot however be challenged by ‘ordinary’ people), and turn them on their heads. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”
http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/
Information out of the Lyndon Johnson Library also shows that LBJ did not accept the Israeli version of a friendly fire mistake - the attack lasted for hours and involved both air and naval forces of Israel - not to mention the fact that the USS Liberty had been overflown several times by Israeli air force jets prior to the attack.
But the Israelis did pay compensation - of course, considering how much aid we give them, its sort of amounts to being paid with your own money.
Israel had asked the US to keep its ships out of harms way by keeping them out of the war zone. Assurances had been given that this request would be apporved and followed. The OAF had no idea an American ship would be in the area.
Nothing in your posting changes the fact that the DoD report was accepted and approved by the Pentagon and the President. The incident was a friendly fire accident, regretable and unfortunate, but not on purpose.
As for the last paragraph in your posting, it isn't worthy of comment.
This is the same story. Some Israeli/Jewish Groups want to boycott the US for not supporting Israel.
All the power to them. Perhaps this is a sign for Americans for a national tax day revolt and not pay their taxes since 1 billion dollars go to Israel.
Fairly simple math, no money and no settlements. No money or arms for peace. Israel doesnt want peace because it invests so much in the secuirty industry.
The US is Israel's only faithful ally next to the Rothchilds who set up Israel illegally in the first place.
You make Jerusalem an international city with UN troops doing security. You tear down those concrete walls which are ghettoizing the Palestinians.
I am always surprised at the lack of historical knowledge by some of the anti-Israeli writers on this site. The one here by sam is a perfect example of a writer commenting in a manner that reveals a lack of knowledge about the restoration of Israel.
There was no country named Israel before 1948. The historical name of the place -- ages ago -- was Judea.
Ha, gotta love the "to the winner goes the spoils" crowd. Under that puerile view the US should be occupying German territory. Gotta also love the western colonialist pro-Israeli revisionism. MEMO to all Palestine deniers, the Zionist movement was a colonial movement imposed by western entitlement. What in the world did the Zionist expect? Palestinian, "Yes, please take our land, and while you're at it establish an exclusively jewish state on our olive groves. Also, you can have our villages and homes." What a crock.
Another posting by a writer who reveals no knowledge of the restoration of Israel. tasies makes comments that are demonstrably false. For example, the US should occupy German territory. The fact is the US did occupy a large segment of Germany following WW II. However, the situation in Israel is certainly not analogous to the US and Germany. Israel fought a defensive war against the Arab nations and won, taking land from Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. Not a single inch of land was taken from the Palestinians.
You know by the way, if you were a Holocaust denier Huffington post would ban you in a heartbeat. Why they let you get away with open Nakba denial just goes to show how racist both US and Israeli society continues to be.
Americans didnt demolish German homes and build homes for Americans on top.
They never seized water sources, olive groves, plots of land and fields.
America never colonized and populated Germany _at any point_ with armed American civilians.
Specious nonsense. The founders of Israel were invaders from Europe, not defenders of anything other than conquered territory. The wars with the Arabs was an unsuccessful attempt to expell the invaders.
It's an accurate analogy when dealing within the parameters of annexation of occupied land. Weather it was a defensive or offensive war is completely, positively and objectively irrelevant (unless if you believe the caricature that the Zionist movement has created of Israeli history). And let me rock your world furthermore, weather the 47 War was defensive or offensive is open for discourse. I for one, don't dismiss the Arab history books. So it seems to me that, your claims are demonstrably revisionist, pro-Zionist and extremely western.
Just one question: What have the Arabs/Palestinians done for us lately?
Your thinking is preposterous. By your measure, Israel should be the sacrificial lamb in order to make the Iranians happy. The bridge to peace with the Arabs and Iranians is not through the West Bank settlements. It is through the hearts and minds of the Arabs and Iranians. But it is an impossible situation as the leaders of the street flock can only control their people through hate and disdain of Israel and America. Israel stopping settlements in the West Bank will hardly change the minds of the street when the region is ruled by autocrats and theocrats whose very existence depends on their hate of the Jewish state.
On the other hand, time will bring changes. Obama is right to 'court' the street. But pushing Israel into a corner will only result in a fractious relationship with a true friend, actually the only friend of America in the Middle East. I'm sure Obama doesn't want to think of what it could mean to his reelection in 4 years.
Halli Casser-Jayne http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com
Your assessment of the territorial issue is flawed. It is the heart of the problem with Arabs and Islam.
Not really.
The attacks on 9/11 were done because the US had troops on Saudi Arabian soil. According to bin Laden he wanted the infidels to leave the holy land of islam.
Examine the most recent problems in the region. Irag invaded Iran- nothing to do with Israel. Iraq invades Kuwait- again, nothing to do with Israel. Syria seeks to impose its control over Lebanon- nothing to do with israel. Egypt and Syria crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood- no Jews allowed. The Kurdish revolt i Iraq-nothing to do with Israel.
The fact of the matter is most of the problems in the region do not involve Israel, but are intra-Arab struggles.
Well, the Palestinians haven't soaked up billions of dollars in US military aid and equipment just so they could wage deliberate attacks on population centers, for starters. That right there gives them a one up on Israel.
None of the charges you have made apply to Israel. Not a single one.
Stop giving israel billion upon billions of our money,so they can give themselves free higher education, while we do without, free health care while we do without and force them to stop buying weapons to bully their neighbors.. Make them grow up..
FYI: most of the US aid to Israel never leaves the States. It is spent in the US defense industry - including a few extras Israel doesn't want, but needs to buy as condition for getting the money to buy planes, weapons, etc that is does need.
Another major component of US aid to Israel is as loan guarantees, again no actual money leaving the States. And Israel has never defaulted on a payment. Can our American car companies claim the same?
If you have issue with the volume of US aid to Israel, fine - but address the facts. Israelis are not getting our education and health care paid for by the US. Trust me, I pay Israeli income taxes - I know how high they are.
The people who founded the Holy Land Foundation were found guilty of supporting Hamas in spite of the fact that not a single dime went to Hamas, let alone to militant activity. The logic was that, by paying for social needs of the Palestinian people, they were "freeing up" Hamas to pay for military equipment and activities.
The same logic doesn't apply to US aid supporting Israeli colonization of the West Bank? Yeah that's not a blatant double standard.
Your knowledge of US aid to Israel is as comprehensive as your knowledge of the Roman empire in the Middle East - US aid allows the Israeli government to subsidize the illegal settlements in the West Bank, it allows the Israeli government to build the illegal wall on Palestinian land - it allows the Israelis to continue its policy of apartheid towards the Palestinian people. For those of us not in the in-crowd, just what "few extras" does the Israeli government get that it doesn't want. Giving your government aid that your government uses to buy fighter jets means that you get them for free and when you use them to drop bombs on civilians, we become accomplices.
By the way, were it not for our aid, your taxes would be a lot higher or your benefits less - think about that one when you are not reading up on the real history of the region.
If you drop a plate on the floor and it breaks, then you say sorry for your mistake and then start clearing it up. You don't try to insist that it wasn't a mistake. We need to realize that creating Israel by giving land we didn't own to a group of religious crazies was a mistake. Once we've made an honest admission that it was an error then we'll be in a better position to start clearing up the mess.
Trying to insist that creating Israel by taking land away from people who had lived there for generations and giving it to new arrivals was a bright idea leads to a lot of distorted thinking. OK we have to be realistic about how to clear up the mess, but honesty is a good way to start being realistic.
The US did not create Israel and neither did the UN. The UN partition plan restored Israel, it did not create it
The state of Israel is a modern invention. There is nothing to restore. It was created 60 years ago.
A bunch of nomads wandering around a desert carrying tents isnt a state.
Linking better behavior by Iran with the Palestinian issue is phony. The Israeli settlements must be
removed becasue they are ILLEGAL. Of course, criminals do not have any problems with things illegal.
The problem with your posting is it is absolutely wrong..
If something is "wrong" then why don't you correct it? There's no content. The Israeli settlements ARE illegal under, say UN Security Council Resolution 452 but as well Israel's admission into the UN was contingent on other resolutions that they seem to have ignored as well .such as resolution 194
Will Obama buckle from what position?
His current position on Israel is that no matter what their actions we will continue to fund them and continue to block the UN from sanctioning them. There's nothing to buckle from. The US has always "demanded" an end to the settlements, and always looked the other way when it didn't happen
Normally demands are followed by a "or we will do this..." after them. Certainly we have no problems putting conditions on any kind of aid that goes to the Palestinians.
Obama seems to be following in that tradition.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
