"Benjamin Netanyahu may as well have canceled his trip to Washington: Barack Obama did the work for him, or most of it."
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-demolished-palestinian-chances-for-statehood-1.362895
This is a recent article by the Israeli Jewish writer Gideon Levi commenting on President Obama's speech and its promise to the Israeli government. An article that is worth reading.
"The 1,500 new apartments in Jerusalem will be built, speech or no speech. The real test for that speech, as for any other, is what happens next, and the suspicion is that nothing will happen at all."
Amer, do you buy the conclusions of the article (and its provocative headline)?
ReplyDeleteI, and others who analyze US Middle East policy, didn't hear too much that was radically different from the status quo ante in Obama's speech. The only "new" stuff was that the President formally declared what had been the US's soft position formerly: that the border negotiations would have to start at the 1967 borders, and that there would have to be land swaps if Israel wanted to retain West Bank settlements.
I disagree with the article when Levy argues that the President--by not commenting on it--tacitly handed Jerusalem to Netanyahu, and torpedoed the chances for Palestinian statehood. First, not commenting on something in a foreign policy address that marks a pretty big break with past policies doesn't necessarily mean tacit approval. It does mean that the US isn't including demolitions/building in Jerusalem as a starting point for negotiations. But, given the fact that the US has barely made a peep in regards to previous demolitions/construction--and hardly reacted beyond public declarations of insult when new construction was announced during Biden's visit last year--this isn't anything new.
Not that I'm celebrating a continuation of the US policies that have turned a blind eye to Israeli tactics in Jerusalem, but in the end, the positions articulated by the President's speech mark a significant move in favor of the Palestinian cause.
Bibi and the rest of the Likudniks are supposedly "apoplectic" about the President's speech, and as Martin Indyk has said (I'm paraphrasing), in the current climate, anything that makes Netanyahu mad is good for the Palestinians.
Finally, regarding the nonsense about cautioning Palestine not to declare statehood, that's just hot air and (I believe) a sop to Israel. There's nothing the US can or will do to stop it, or even to discourage the PA from doing it. On the face of it, it's a ridiculous assertion to say anything like, "unilaterally declaring statehood, with the support of the UN, is counter-productive."
Me, I wonder why that idea (declaring statehood) wasn't tried in 2000.
I think the scariest part about Obama's speech was how Israel pushed hard to get changes made, and that there was even a chance that Israeli pressure could change US policy before it was even announced publicly. It used to be that Israel took cues from the US, and the US had significant influence over Israeli policy. Now it seems the other way around.
I understand what you said Joseph. But i do think and honestly believe that the United States government/s and the future ones will not be able to put pressure on Israel.
ReplyDeleteObama in his speech did not bring anything new to the public or to be discussed on the table. He said the negotiations should start on the 1967, yes well this is the bottom line of any possible negotiations if they ever happen again in the soon future.
But also Obama did not mention about the situation of Jerusalem, or refugees or prisoners or illegal settlements that are still being built daily within the oPT.
Obama gave another speech in front of the AIPAC 2 days ago. although i can imagine his speech infront on of the strongest lobbys if not the strongest in the States. But he mentioned about the security of Israel 23 times and he did not mention the Palestinian security!
Obama keeps saying about the Jewish homeland and the right of JEws in having a secure homeland where all Jews from different countires and nationalities can immigrate to live in, but never mentioned about the Palestinian refugees who were obviously in the land and according to all human rights and international laws have the right to return.
After Obama's first speech,Palestinians in Ramallah, Gaza and Arabs in Egypt and other places went into the streets to talk about their disappointment of his speech.
http://maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=390109
ReplyDeleteHere is a link for an article found on Ma'an Palestinian news center. This is the
Palestinian point of view from Obama's two speeches.
I tend to agree with you about the ability of the US government to put pressure on Israel now and in the near future. Like I said before, it's weird (for someone of my age & experience) to see Israel dictating US policy when the influence used to be stronger going the other way.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think Obama articulating the 1967 borders as a starting point for future negotiations is huge--maybe not so much for Palestinians, but in American politics, it is.
Check out this stuff for examples:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/162211-romney-obama-has-thrown-israel-under-the-bus
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/162241-pawlenty-obamas-israel-proposal-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/37451/great-allen-wests-reponse-to-obamas-palestinian-speech/