Obama and a “Netanyahu” Cabinet!
Published in Al Ahram
(Egypt) on 15 April 2009
by Atef Al Ghamry (link to original)
(Egypt) on 15 April 2009
by Atef Al Ghamry (link to original)
Translated from
by Asmaa Sharaf El Deen.
Edited by Bridgette Blight.
Benjamin Netanyahu exploited U.S. President Barack Obama’s strategies towards the Middle East, still being studied by the State Department and National Security Council, to declare before the Knesset [Israel’s legislature] what contradicts with the unfulfilled words and statements of Obama’s administration. Since his election in November and inauguration on Jan. 20, Obama is using experts in Arab-Israeli negotiations to scrutinize his plans.
Those experts did not conceal their misgivings about Netanyahu’s position as Prime Minister of Israel, considering that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the main problem in the region. And with admitting the failure of former American administrations in defusing that conflict, they regarded that suspending an immediate way out to peace process does great harm to America’s vital interests. These are the views of the realistic school in foreign affairs to which most of those Obama nominated to be his Secretaries, assistants and advisers belong. It sees that all problems US faces in the region are associated, with Palestine’s cause at the top.
Netanyahu is playing to a tune other than Obama’s refusal of the notion of dissolving the two states. This was announced later by Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu’s minister of foreign affairs. It assures, even theoretically, the potential clash between Israel’s policies and America’s interests in the region.
Among Obama’s desired guidelines on this issue is a study titled “Restoring the Balance.” Fifteen Middle East affairs veterans including Richard N. Haass, Shibley Telhami, Martin S. Indyk, Bruce Reidel and others prepared this study. The study, a nonpartisan strategy made by Foreign Affairs Council and Brookings Institution, was released in December 2008.
The strategy tackled, among various views, the necessity of America deeply re-evaluating its strategies and adopting a comprehensive diplomatic initiative, where Obama makes of achieving Arab-Israeli peaceful settlement a priority. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a pivotal issue, not only for Israel and its neighbors but also for America’s image in Arabs’ eyes.
Many other studies, prepared by political and strategic centers, concerned with American national security and American interests in the Middle East, are not any different from this one. This study is described as providing Obama with recommendations to the effect of keeping the Palestinian issue a bay from other problems and challenges. This is something Israel prefers most because it promotes America turning a blind eye to the Palestinian cause, which will harm American security and interests.
But to what extent will Obama implement the attitude he has always shared, even if it only prescribes for the solution of two independent states (something Netanyahu’s cabinet has publicly refused)?
The answer to this question must consider these:
- Obama’s ability to make policies is hindered by the American political system, which allows special interest groups, including the Jewish lobby, to have a part in making foreign policy.
- Obama’s willingness and ability to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict would be in sheer conformity with the strength or weakness of the Arab attitude that is mainly, and regrettably as well, based on taking second steps and other party’s initiatives.
- The point where strategies of calculated goals and benefits meet is in policies for America and other strategic countries. In this process, each strategy works to replace the other or even to shelve it. Accordingly, status and policies take shape.
If Arabs do not make strategic moves, Israel will pull its weight to affect American attitudes, even with Obama’s good intentions and peaceful views. So far, Obama’s intended moves are merely stirring expectations.
Those experts did not conceal their misgivings about Netanyahu’s position as Prime Minister of Israel, considering that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the main problem in the region. And with admitting the failure of former American administrations in defusing that conflict, they regarded that suspending an immediate way out to peace process does great harm to America’s vital interests. These are the views of the realistic school in foreign affairs to which most of those Obama nominated to be his Secretaries, assistants and advisers belong. It sees that all problems US faces in the region are associated, with Palestine’s cause at the top.
Netanyahu is playing to a tune other than Obama’s refusal of the notion of dissolving the two states. This was announced later by Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu’s minister of foreign affairs. It assures, even theoretically, the potential clash between Israel’s policies and America’s interests in the region.
Among Obama’s desired guidelines on this issue is a study titled “Restoring the Balance.” Fifteen Middle East affairs veterans including Richard N. Haass, Shibley Telhami, Martin S. Indyk, Bruce Reidel and others prepared this study. The study, a nonpartisan strategy made by Foreign Affairs Council and Brookings Institution, was released in December 2008.
The strategy tackled, among various views, the necessity of America deeply re-evaluating its strategies and adopting a comprehensive diplomatic initiative, where Obama makes of achieving Arab-Israeli peaceful settlement a priority. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a pivotal issue, not only for Israel and its neighbors but also for America’s image in Arabs’ eyes.
Many other studies, prepared by political and strategic centers, concerned with American national security and American interests in the Middle East, are not any different from this one. This study is described as providing Obama with recommendations to the effect of keeping the Palestinian issue a bay from other problems and challenges. This is something Israel prefers most because it promotes America turning a blind eye to the Palestinian cause, which will harm American security and interests.
But to what extent will Obama implement the attitude he has always shared, even if it only prescribes for the solution of two independent states (something Netanyahu’s cabinet has publicly refused)?
The answer to this question must consider these:
- Obama’s ability to make policies is hindered by the American political system, which allows special interest groups, including the Jewish lobby, to have a part in making foreign policy.
- Obama’s willingness and ability to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict would be in sheer conformity with the strength or weakness of the Arab attitude that is mainly, and regrettably as well, based on taking second steps and other party’s initiatives.
- The point where strategies of calculated goals and benefits meet is in policies for America and other strategic countries. In this process, each strategy works to replace the other or even to shelve it. Accordingly, status and policies take shape.
If Arabs do not make strategic moves, Israel will pull its weight to affect American attitudes, even with Obama’s good intentions and peaceful views. So far, Obama’s intended moves are merely stirring expectations.
Previous article![]( "Decoding the Financial Jargon")
