Obama: Challenges and Threats
On April 20, 2010, the New York Times published an article by former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk regarding American foreign policy in the Middle East. The article indicated the unease of the U.S. administration with Netanyahu’s continued policy of challenging the United States. Indyk suggested that Netanyahu needs to make a choice: “take on the president of the United States, or take on his right wing" [in Israel]. Indyk explained that if Netanyahu sides with the right wing politicians in his cabinet who oppose peace and continually challenge America, there will be “dire consequences.” He does not, however, elaborate on the exact types of “dire consequences” that would threaten the U.S.-Israel relationship.
From the tone of these statements, one can infer that a “policy of intimidation” now appears clearly in Obama’s approach to Israel, and his approach now differs markedly from the policies of his predecessors. Previous U.S. presidents did not discuss their communications with Israel, let alone hint at consequences of disagreement. The superficially diplomatic language of the administration contains within it a tone of great anger, because Israel crossed the line with Washington. This occurred as the American government had been trying to save face with the rest of the world, which sees the relationship between the two countries as deeply biased and considers Israel to be a spoiled child, continually ignoring international law as the U.S. perpetually stands by its side.
Indyk’s article clearly illustrates the new policy of the U.S. administration. Obama has tried to work with Israel through quiet diplomacy amidst his frank determination to solve the Palestinian issue and establish a Palestinian state. His passion comes from a desire to solve the interconnected problems of the Middle East, in addition to creating an atmosphere of cooperation that would serve U.S. interests. Obama has tried to neutralize strong countries in the region, but so far has not been successful. Attempting to neutralize Syria failed, as did extending a hand to Iran in exchange for it abandoning a peaceful nuclear program, which America views as a security threat. In an angry and intimidating manner, America has threatened the use of military force. As expected, these threats have lead the entire region back to threats of mutual destruction and an increase in conflict, and in so doing, have left America’s interests worse off.
This time, America challenged Israel by repeatedly trying to deter Netanyahu and his ministers from going forward with their settlements. Unfortunately, the tactic failed, and the U.S. had to resend U.S. envoy George Mitchell to sit down with Netanyahu to repeat the demand for a freeze of settlement activity and concessions, in order to begin direct or indirect peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
Israel’s continued challenging of Obama, and its continuing provocations in the region, disturb his efforts to generate cooperation in the Middle East.
Obama’s threats and challenges differ among different areas in the region, which increases the complexity of solving the Palestinian issue, considered “the mother of all problems.” It is necessary for the U.S. to organize these challenges into a clear strategy to enable talks with all parties. The challenge for the U.S. and Israel is clear: Israel is a spoiled child clinging stubbornly to its policy of refusing peace. This may mean that Israel gains time, but to what end? The challenge for the U.S. and other countries in the region is also clear: Countries in the Middle East are determined to escape from U.S. hegemony over them. As for the challenges facing the Arab countries, they seem to lack a clear plan, and remain divided and unable to exploit the deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and Israel for their benefit, as well as the two countries' conflicting aims. This only makes the situation worse. Israel has become a burden on the U.S., while it once was a treasure. Continued hardening of the U.S. against this cartoonish hardening of Israel may make forcing a just settlement — which preserves the rights of the Palestinians — necessary. This would make room for the U.S. to work in a more rational way with the countries and people of the region, who have sunken into a sea of insecurity and yet, aspire to a lasting peace.
From the tone of these statements, one can infer that a “policy of intimidation” now appears clearly in Obama’s approach to Israel, and his approach now differs markedly from the policies of his predecessors. Previous U.S. presidents did not discuss their communications with Israel, let alone hint at consequences of disagreement. The superficially diplomatic language of the administration contains within it a tone of great anger, because Israel crossed the line with Washington. This occurred as the American government had been trying to save face with the rest of the world, which sees the relationship between the two countries as deeply biased and considers Israel to be a spoiled child, continually ignoring international law as the U.S. perpetually stands by its side.
Indyk’s article clearly illustrates the new policy of the U.S. administration. Obama has tried to work with Israel through quiet diplomacy amidst his frank determination to solve the Palestinian issue and establish a Palestinian state. His passion comes from a desire to solve the interconnected problems of the Middle East, in addition to creating an atmosphere of cooperation that would serve U.S. interests. Obama has tried to neutralize strong countries in the region, but so far has not been successful. Attempting to neutralize Syria failed, as did extending a hand to Iran in exchange for it abandoning a peaceful nuclear program, which America views as a security threat. In an angry and intimidating manner, America has threatened the use of military force. As expected, these threats have lead the entire region back to threats of mutual destruction and an increase in conflict, and in so doing, have left America’s interests worse off.
This time, America challenged Israel by repeatedly trying to deter Netanyahu and his ministers from going forward with their settlements. Unfortunately, the tactic failed, and the U.S. had to resend U.S. envoy George Mitchell to sit down with Netanyahu to repeat the demand for a freeze of settlement activity and concessions, in order to begin direct or indirect peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
Israel’s continued challenging of Obama, and its continuing provocations in the region, disturb his efforts to generate cooperation in the Middle East.
Obama’s threats and challenges differ among different areas in the region, which increases the complexity of solving the Palestinian issue, considered “the mother of all problems.” It is necessary for the U.S. to organize these challenges into a clear strategy to enable talks with all parties. The challenge for the U.S. and Israel is clear: Israel is a spoiled child clinging stubbornly to its policy of refusing peace. This may mean that Israel gains time, but to what end? The challenge for the U.S. and other countries in the region is also clear: Countries in the Middle East are determined to escape from U.S. hegemony over them. As for the challenges facing the Arab countries, they seem to lack a clear plan, and remain divided and unable to exploit the deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and Israel for their benefit, as well as the two countries' conflicting aims. This only makes the situation worse. Israel has become a burden on the U.S., while it once was a treasure. Continued hardening of the U.S. against this cartoonish hardening of Israel may make forcing a just settlement — which preserves the rights of the Palestinians — necessary. This would make room for the U.S. to work in a more rational way with the countries and people of the region, who have sunken into a sea of insecurity and yet, aspire to a lasting peace.