Israel’s Message to the American President
At the beginning of his term, President Obama took a memorable attitude towards the flaming issue of the Middle East, i.e. the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He surprised the Arab world, the international community and the extremist government of Israel when he openly declared that the U.S. will not recognize Israel’s joining of any of the occupied territories and called on it to ground its settling activities there to a halt.
Indeed, this attitude of Obama was to the astonishment of the whole world. This is, quite simply, because the U.S. adopted the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and provides Israel with military and diplomatic support since it was forcibly established in the Middle East region upon the usurped territories of Palestine. Also, it is the U.S. that protects and defends the Zionist entity against its Arab “enemies and politicians” who pledge to inflict their “woe” upon it.
So, the nagging question now is: Can Obama change his remarkable attitude into a solid American one? In actuality, he attempted to do it and some of those betting on the American situation still believe that he is going to succeed. As a result, the PNA [Palestinian National Authority] made the settlements’ halting a condition to resume direct negotiations, talks that have bore no fruits at all since they were started many years ago.
Actually, Palestinian negotiators deemed the settlements’ freeze as an Israeli admission of the illegitimacy of its post 1967-war occupation of the Palestinian territories. These same territories are suggested to include the independent Palestinian state after they formally abandoned the idea of revenging Israel. If the halting of settlements were to happen, it would have been a big gain and considerable progress in the light of the established fact that Israel did not approve, either explicitly or implicitly, any peace initiative, the two states plan or any suggestion that grants Palestinians something of their legitimate rights.
The answer of the Israeli government came as a slap on the face of the ambitious American president. It declared that there are going to be new settling projects in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. By this, the Israeli government meant to tell Obama that he can rule America but he cannot, or rather will not, do the same with Israel. Even more, it went on to claim that settlements are the sacred right of Jews on the land of Palestine!
After the tension and puzzlements that followed, the world was awakened. The impasse aggravated attempted diplomacy, and Obama seemed to be angry with Israel and its expanding policies. Yet, the attempts were made to continue negotiations and pressures were exerted on involved parties. Israel was always keen on implying its refusal of halting settlements as well as showing its reservations about the suggested Palestinian state, though.
The U.S., for its part, suggested a draft for indirect negotiations for a set period of time after intensive communications with the Israeli and Palestinian players as well as other Arab parties. This step was meant to get out of the stalemate, caused by the extremist Israeli government’s defiance of the intentions of the U.S. and a number of international players to stop the Israeli settling activities in the occupied territories by insisting upon resuming them in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
As such, the diplomatic moves to revive negotiations between Israel and Palestinians under the American auspices show that the Israeli government may be persuaded to respond to American efforts and international demands to get back to direct negotiations through the indirect ones. So, indirect negotiations aim to set a frame for negotiations and principles, leading to results instead of being lost in vicious circles. Nevertheless, the resounding surprise came after American diplomats exerted their efforts to re-prepare the table of indirect negotiations for four months and set a frame for the following direct negotiations. As the American vice-president went to Israel to launch the indirect negotiations, the Israeli government welcomed him with its scheme to erect 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem!
This slap Obama got was so harsh that the world stood agape wondering: What were all these diplomatic efforts and communications for? Did Israelis bring the American vice-president to embarrass him before the international public? What is the aim of this malevolent maneuver? More importantly, how is the U.S. going to deal now with its Middle Eastern pampered kid, Israel? Will Obama understand the message and suffice handling the affairs of the globe other than Israel?
Still, Netanyahu apologized to American Vice President Joe Biden and called for an urgent investigation into the accompanying circumstances of the Israeli declaration during the American official’s visit. Worth mentioning, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the Israeli declaration as an insult to her country and warned against the impacts of such a negative step on the American-Israeli relations and peace process in the Middle East.
Moreover, in a comment that mirrors the international situation, the British daily “The Guardian” wrote that policies pivot, first and foremost, on achievement of benefits. More often than not, states and governments act according to their interests. However, the behavior of Israeli politicians during Biden’s visit is a queer and rare exception to this aforementioned rule.
The British daily added that the conduct of Israeli leadership during the visit were unhelpful to the extent of inflicting harm upon their country. Instead of welcoming Biden, the daily goes on to say, the Israeli leadership intended to directly offend Biden and Obama’s administration by revealing its schemes of building units in East Jerusalem. This comes in a brazen defiance of U.S. demands of freezing the settling activities Israel carries out in the territories it seized in 1967.
On the same note, the newspaper says that it was not strange that the news enraged Obama, who met Biden for 90 minutes to draft an unprecedented sharp-toned condemnation statement to Israel. Plus “The Guardian” sees that the recent behavior of Israeli leaders virtually perplexed commentators in Israeli media.
Finally, we need to ask: Does the problem lie in the declaration of a new settlement project while the American vice-president was in Israel, or does Israel’s problem have to do with the failure of its extremist government to make a decision and accept the dues of desired peace?
Indeed, this attitude of Obama was to the astonishment of the whole world. This is, quite simply, because the U.S. adopted the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and provides Israel with military and diplomatic support since it was forcibly established in the Middle East region upon the usurped territories of Palestine. Also, it is the U.S. that protects and defends the Zionist entity against its Arab “enemies and politicians” who pledge to inflict their “woe” upon it.
So, the nagging question now is: Can Obama change his remarkable attitude into a solid American one? In actuality, he attempted to do it and some of those betting on the American situation still believe that he is going to succeed. As a result, the PNA [Palestinian National Authority] made the settlements’ halting a condition to resume direct negotiations, talks that have bore no fruits at all since they were started many years ago.
Actually, Palestinian negotiators deemed the settlements’ freeze as an Israeli admission of the illegitimacy of its post 1967-war occupation of the Palestinian territories. These same territories are suggested to include the independent Palestinian state after they formally abandoned the idea of revenging Israel. If the halting of settlements were to happen, it would have been a big gain and considerable progress in the light of the established fact that Israel did not approve, either explicitly or implicitly, any peace initiative, the two states plan or any suggestion that grants Palestinians something of their legitimate rights.
The answer of the Israeli government came as a slap on the face of the ambitious American president. It declared that there are going to be new settling projects in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. By this, the Israeli government meant to tell Obama that he can rule America but he cannot, or rather will not, do the same with Israel. Even more, it went on to claim that settlements are the sacred right of Jews on the land of Palestine!
After the tension and puzzlements that followed, the world was awakened. The impasse aggravated attempted diplomacy, and Obama seemed to be angry with Israel and its expanding policies. Yet, the attempts were made to continue negotiations and pressures were exerted on involved parties. Israel was always keen on implying its refusal of halting settlements as well as showing its reservations about the suggested Palestinian state, though.
The U.S., for its part, suggested a draft for indirect negotiations for a set period of time after intensive communications with the Israeli and Palestinian players as well as other Arab parties. This step was meant to get out of the stalemate, caused by the extremist Israeli government’s defiance of the intentions of the U.S. and a number of international players to stop the Israeli settling activities in the occupied territories by insisting upon resuming them in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
As such, the diplomatic moves to revive negotiations between Israel and Palestinians under the American auspices show that the Israeli government may be persuaded to respond to American efforts and international demands to get back to direct negotiations through the indirect ones. So, indirect negotiations aim to set a frame for negotiations and principles, leading to results instead of being lost in vicious circles. Nevertheless, the resounding surprise came after American diplomats exerted their efforts to re-prepare the table of indirect negotiations for four months and set a frame for the following direct negotiations. As the American vice-president went to Israel to launch the indirect negotiations, the Israeli government welcomed him with its scheme to erect 1600 housing units in East Jerusalem!
This slap Obama got was so harsh that the world stood agape wondering: What were all these diplomatic efforts and communications for? Did Israelis bring the American vice-president to embarrass him before the international public? What is the aim of this malevolent maneuver? More importantly, how is the U.S. going to deal now with its Middle Eastern pampered kid, Israel? Will Obama understand the message and suffice handling the affairs of the globe other than Israel?
Still, Netanyahu apologized to American Vice President Joe Biden and called for an urgent investigation into the accompanying circumstances of the Israeli declaration during the American official’s visit. Worth mentioning, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the Israeli declaration as an insult to her country and warned against the impacts of such a negative step on the American-Israeli relations and peace process in the Middle East.
Moreover, in a comment that mirrors the international situation, the British daily “The Guardian” wrote that policies pivot, first and foremost, on achievement of benefits. More often than not, states and governments act according to their interests. However, the behavior of Israeli politicians during Biden’s visit is a queer and rare exception to this aforementioned rule.
The British daily added that the conduct of Israeli leadership during the visit were unhelpful to the extent of inflicting harm upon their country. Instead of welcoming Biden, the daily goes on to say, the Israeli leadership intended to directly offend Biden and Obama’s administration by revealing its schemes of building units in East Jerusalem. This comes in a brazen defiance of U.S. demands of freezing the settling activities Israel carries out in the territories it seized in 1967.
On the same note, the newspaper says that it was not strange that the news enraged Obama, who met Biden for 90 minutes to draft an unprecedented sharp-toned condemnation statement to Israel. Plus “The Guardian” sees that the recent behavior of Israeli leaders virtually perplexed commentators in Israeli media.
Finally, we need to ask: Does the problem lie in the declaration of a new settlement project while the American vice-president was in Israel, or does Israel’s problem have to do with the failure of its extremist government to make a decision and accept the dues of desired peace?
Next article![]( "The American–Israeli Crisis Was Long Overdue")
