The United States, Israel, and “Family Issues”
I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that Obama’s meeting with 15 of the most prominent figures in the American Jewish community will be a turning point that can ease Obama’s enthusiasm towards forming a treaty between Israel and Palestine.
The one-hour-long meeting between the Obama administration and the Jewish leaders included members in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Jewish Council for Public Affairs, American Israel Committee, and Jewish foundations. The meeting was based on a request from the Jewish community, because, according to them, they wanted some clarifications about the broad picture of the Obama administration’s “stern position” with the Israeli government and its policies towards Israeli settlements.
Jewish American people think that news about American pressure being exerted on the Israeli government instead of the pressure that previous administrations used to exert on Palestinians makes headlines and arouses interest, but these reports are rarely true. Obama also considered the American-Israeli argument a big “family issue.” This definition has impressed the Jewish people who, in turn, have expressed their delight and satisfaction. They also praised Obama’s hard work in protecting Israel’s security and his belief in Israel’s right to self defense and the special Israeli bond with the United States.
What used to be a “deep argument” between Obama and Netanyahu in terms of building settlements is now “solvable.” Or as the American president has said, there is now a chance for both parties to understand each other, commenting on the results of the last meeting between Ehud Barack, the Israeli Defense Minister, and George Mitchell, the American Envoy. Not only that, but Obama also assured the Jewish community that he will be taking a clearer public position in the next upcoming weeks with regards to what Palestinians ought to do in order to reach a settlement with Israel.
Thus we are no longer at the stage where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would declare that the expansion of Israeli settlements should cease, where it be “normal growth” or brand new settlements. We are now at the point at which we should narrow arguments about the Israeli settlements and the possibility of reaching an understanding. During this stage, the Palestinian Chief Negotiator, Saeb Erekat, confirmed that the Palestinian authorities would reject any American-Israeli agreement that allows even a limited number of settlements in the West Bank. “There are no compromises on the issue of settlements. Either settlements activity is put to halt, or either it isn’t,” said Saeb Erekat.
It is not hard to predict the decision that Obama administration will be inclined to make once the issue comes up between “family members.” Having Ambassador Charles W. Freeman chair the Obama administration’s National Intelligence Council was the first indicator as to which direction America is leaning towards. The overriding decision came after Netanyahu’s government realized how deep their differences were in a meeting with Obama in the White House, which some Arab broadcasting channels had been optimistic about and had predicted a stormy meeting. And then, a convergence about Iran took place.
Despite Obama’s confirmations in his most recent address that his administration did not give Israel the green light to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, his actions speak differently. Talks about not keeping the possibility negotiations with Iran open forever and setting next autumn as the deadline for Iran’s final response about its nuclear activities are actions that are more similar to those of Netanyahu and Lieberman than the act of “reaching our hands” out to the Islamic Republic of Iran, mentioned in one of his famous speeches.
Iran’s issue was at the top of the hierarchy during the “summit” where Obama, according to Jason Isaacson, Director of the AJC’s Office of Government and International Affairs, was very clear with regards to the priority of a unified international stand against Iran making a nuclear weapon.
The one-hour-long meeting between the Obama administration and the Jewish leaders included members in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Jewish Council for Public Affairs, American Israel Committee, and Jewish foundations. The meeting was based on a request from the Jewish community, because, according to them, they wanted some clarifications about the broad picture of the Obama administration’s “stern position” with the Israeli government and its policies towards Israeli settlements.
Jewish American people think that news about American pressure being exerted on the Israeli government instead of the pressure that previous administrations used to exert on Palestinians makes headlines and arouses interest, but these reports are rarely true. Obama also considered the American-Israeli argument a big “family issue.” This definition has impressed the Jewish people who, in turn, have expressed their delight and satisfaction. They also praised Obama’s hard work in protecting Israel’s security and his belief in Israel’s right to self defense and the special Israeli bond with the United States.
What used to be a “deep argument” between Obama and Netanyahu in terms of building settlements is now “solvable.” Or as the American president has said, there is now a chance for both parties to understand each other, commenting on the results of the last meeting between Ehud Barack, the Israeli Defense Minister, and George Mitchell, the American Envoy. Not only that, but Obama also assured the Jewish community that he will be taking a clearer public position in the next upcoming weeks with regards to what Palestinians ought to do in order to reach a settlement with Israel.
Thus we are no longer at the stage where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would declare that the expansion of Israeli settlements should cease, where it be “normal growth” or brand new settlements. We are now at the point at which we should narrow arguments about the Israeli settlements and the possibility of reaching an understanding. During this stage, the Palestinian Chief Negotiator, Saeb Erekat, confirmed that the Palestinian authorities would reject any American-Israeli agreement that allows even a limited number of settlements in the West Bank. “There are no compromises on the issue of settlements. Either settlements activity is put to halt, or either it isn’t,” said Saeb Erekat.
It is not hard to predict the decision that Obama administration will be inclined to make once the issue comes up between “family members.” Having Ambassador Charles W. Freeman chair the Obama administration’s National Intelligence Council was the first indicator as to which direction America is leaning towards. The overriding decision came after Netanyahu’s government realized how deep their differences were in a meeting with Obama in the White House, which some Arab broadcasting channels had been optimistic about and had predicted a stormy meeting. And then, a convergence about Iran took place.
Despite Obama’s confirmations in his most recent address that his administration did not give Israel the green light to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, his actions speak differently. Talks about not keeping the possibility negotiations with Iran open forever and setting next autumn as the deadline for Iran’s final response about its nuclear activities are actions that are more similar to those of Netanyahu and Lieberman than the act of “reaching our hands” out to the Islamic Republic of Iran, mentioned in one of his famous speeches.
Iran’s issue was at the top of the hierarchy during the “summit” where Obama, according to Jason Isaacson, Director of the AJC’s Office of Government and International Affairs, was very clear with regards to the priority of a unified international stand against Iran making a nuclear weapon.