Caution Light
When relationships break down, one question quickly arises: Who is most dependent upon whom? The current Israeli-U.S. rift is no different. It’s only the ultra-rightist settlement lobby in Israel who thinks the Netanyahu administration could afford to break with the Obama administration. Few of the powers within the conservative wing of the Israeli government are willing to risk endangering their country’s close alliance with the United States.
After a lot of back and forth, Netanyahu finally called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday evening in an attempt to get a handle on the problem.
He even agreed to make gestures of good will, possibly an amnesty for Fatah prisoners, possibly an expansion of the autonomous region of the West Bank. The question of settlement expansion that provoked the whole squabble now waits at an amber traffic light. Netanyahu promised that the controversial 1,600 new housing units planned for the Ramat Shlomo settlement would not be started in the next three years. Beyond that, he promised that Israel would cease making a big deal of that issue. It’s a rotten but common formula for compromise in intimate relationships; it saves one from the aggravation of being deceived.
For the time being, Washington is willing to play along. Barack Obama wants to deny his Republican opponents any unnecessary openings that might lurk on the home stretch for his health care reform legislation or perhaps refocus attention on Iran; the Mullahs have been standing smiling on the sidelines as the United States and Israel go at each other.
But it’s pointless to try disguising the noise surrounding Jerusalem; the crisis there exists because Israel’s contradictory policies went unchallenged for too long. When Netanyahu saw it was necessary to accept the two-state solution, the world applauded; but it also watched as he sent new cement mixers to the settlers at the same time.
The avoidance of conflict, however, isn’t a substitute for the peace process. That makes the decision reached in Moscow by the Middle East Quartet to demand a halt to settlement expansion and the destruction of Arab houses in East Jerusalem all the more important. It’s even more critical that the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia all worked in unison to reach that decision. Otherwise, their goal of founding a democratic Palestinian state within two years would be unrealistic.
The headwinds are strong, not only in Israel but for the Palestinians as well. Mahmoud Abbas’ moderate autonomous leadership sticks in Hamas’ craw. His potential will only lessen if a political compromise is reached. But reconciliation talks are a good first step; both sides have pro-peace factions that hope Obama won’t give up.
American generals like David Petraeus have begun to openly complain that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is destroying U.S. credibility in the Middle East. How can America hope to forge alliances with the Saudis, Egyptians and the Gulf States against Iran if its own best friend, Israel, ignores it? It’s a key question that provides the real motive for overcoming the crisis. In view of the Iranian threat, the U.S. and Israel need each other.
After a lot of back and forth, Netanyahu finally called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday evening in an attempt to get a handle on the problem.
He even agreed to make gestures of good will, possibly an amnesty for Fatah prisoners, possibly an expansion of the autonomous region of the West Bank. The question of settlement expansion that provoked the whole squabble now waits at an amber traffic light. Netanyahu promised that the controversial 1,600 new housing units planned for the Ramat Shlomo settlement would not be started in the next three years. Beyond that, he promised that Israel would cease making a big deal of that issue. It’s a rotten but common formula for compromise in intimate relationships; it saves one from the aggravation of being deceived.
For the time being, Washington is willing to play along. Barack Obama wants to deny his Republican opponents any unnecessary openings that might lurk on the home stretch for his health care reform legislation or perhaps refocus attention on Iran; the Mullahs have been standing smiling on the sidelines as the United States and Israel go at each other.
But it’s pointless to try disguising the noise surrounding Jerusalem; the crisis there exists because Israel’s contradictory policies went unchallenged for too long. When Netanyahu saw it was necessary to accept the two-state solution, the world applauded; but it also watched as he sent new cement mixers to the settlers at the same time.
The avoidance of conflict, however, isn’t a substitute for the peace process. That makes the decision reached in Moscow by the Middle East Quartet to demand a halt to settlement expansion and the destruction of Arab houses in East Jerusalem all the more important. It’s even more critical that the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia all worked in unison to reach that decision. Otherwise, their goal of founding a democratic Palestinian state within two years would be unrealistic.
The headwinds are strong, not only in Israel but for the Palestinians as well. Mahmoud Abbas’ moderate autonomous leadership sticks in Hamas’ craw. His potential will only lessen if a political compromise is reached. But reconciliation talks are a good first step; both sides have pro-peace factions that hope Obama won’t give up.
American generals like David Petraeus have begun to openly complain that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is destroying U.S. credibility in the Middle East. How can America hope to forge alliances with the Saudis, Egyptians and the Gulf States against Iran if its own best friend, Israel, ignores it? It’s a key question that provides the real motive for overcoming the crisis. In view of the Iranian threat, the U.S. and Israel need each other.
Previous article![]( "Embattled U.S. Can’t Risk Slamming Door Shut on Foreign Trade")
