Has Obama and Kerry's Pandering to Israel Failed?
This began with Obama’s visit to Israel, which was characterized by endless exaggerated praise and flattery: The president said all the right things, such as referring to Israel as the “Jewish state,” and visited various places such as Yad Vashem and the “Iron Dome.” He even presented additional funds to Israel — more than the usual aid — which amounts to $3.1 billion per annum; and this week Congress agreed to grant an additional $500 million to Israel for missile defense research.
Kerry also employed the flattery policy by accepting Netanyahu’s “peace via economic development” tactic. He also refused to publicly comment on demands that Israel follow through with its international obligations in regard to freezing unlawful settlement activities or acknowledging its consent to the authority of the two-state solution negotiations based on the 1967 borders.
In spite of all this flattery, the Israeli government still must discuss the matter, to say nothing of voting on the simple question of whether Israel will accept the two-state solution. Deputy Minister of Defense Danny Danon made a statement claiming that if the matter came to vote, then the majority of Israeli parliament would vote against the two-state concept, which was unanimously agreed upon internationally as the basis of a solution. Nobody knows what the Israeli government will propose as an alternative to the ongoing unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories for 46 years, in addition to military control of millions of Palestinians’ lives.
When Kerry conducted his fifth visit to the region in the space of just a few months, few were willing to say that Obama and Kerry’s plan had failed, even though U.S. leadership had clearly failed to bring about the most basic of breakthroughs: convincing all sides to agree upon the negotiation basis. The second Obama administration is still in its first year; during this stage one must not speak about the administration failing.
But even if it were premature for Washington to acknowledge its failure to resume the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, this delay must be buying some time for Kerry and his team to ponder his comprehensive plan of action for achieving the goal of conflict resolution.
In the interest of fairness, it would appear that Kerry has a three-pronged strategy, composed of the security, economic and political aspects. In terms of security, the U.S. sent former General John Allen from Afghanistan to aid in attending to Israel’s security needs. On the economic front, Kerry introduced a plan at the World Economic Forum that will pump $4 billion in investments and global economic aid into Palestinian regions. And politically, Kerry and his team are still equally working with Netanyahu in the interest of the American Jewish front to arrive at a formula that would allow face-to-face peace talks to resume.
Anyone who observes the language used by the U.S. with Israel will doubtlessly have the impression that the Americans are essentially beseeching Israel to agree on the talks. There are no indications or body language in the talks that reflect the simple fact that after 46 years, Israel is still the aggressor and the entire international community has determined that Israel must change its political trajectory.
Europeans who are attempting to help, without revealing that they are taking the place of American efforts, have focused on the need to invest in the Jordan Valley and other regions in “Area C.” They are also strongly pushing for a separate and entitled process that would put an end to counterfeiting products produced in existing settlements in occupied Palestine as products of Israel, which then subsequently receive preferential treatment on the basis of trade agreements between Israel and the European Union.
The U.S. refuses to exert any pressure on Israel. There is not a carrot and a stick in Washington’s plan, just a carrot. Meanwhile, Israelis are enjoying every cent of U.S. taxpayers’ “generosity.”
The United States’ regional and global interests are still confined to this excessive flattery, which Israel so undeservedly receives. There will come a time when Americans wake up to this simple fact. The sooner this happens, the better for all involved parties, and the better for peace.
Kerry also employed the flattery policy by accepting Netanyahu’s “peace via economic development” tactic. He also refused to publicly comment on demands that Israel follow through with its international obligations in regard to freezing unlawful settlement activities or acknowledging its consent to the authority of the two-state solution negotiations based on the 1967 borders.
In spite of all this flattery, the Israeli government still must discuss the matter, to say nothing of voting on the simple question of whether Israel will accept the two-state solution. Deputy Minister of Defense Danny Danon made a statement claiming that if the matter came to vote, then the majority of Israeli parliament would vote against the two-state concept, which was unanimously agreed upon internationally as the basis of a solution. Nobody knows what the Israeli government will propose as an alternative to the ongoing unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories for 46 years, in addition to military control of millions of Palestinians’ lives.
When Kerry conducted his fifth visit to the region in the space of just a few months, few were willing to say that Obama and Kerry’s plan had failed, even though U.S. leadership had clearly failed to bring about the most basic of breakthroughs: convincing all sides to agree upon the negotiation basis. The second Obama administration is still in its first year; during this stage one must not speak about the administration failing.
But even if it were premature for Washington to acknowledge its failure to resume the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, this delay must be buying some time for Kerry and his team to ponder his comprehensive plan of action for achieving the goal of conflict resolution.
In the interest of fairness, it would appear that Kerry has a three-pronged strategy, composed of the security, economic and political aspects. In terms of security, the U.S. sent former General John Allen from Afghanistan to aid in attending to Israel’s security needs. On the economic front, Kerry introduced a plan at the World Economic Forum that will pump $4 billion in investments and global economic aid into Palestinian regions. And politically, Kerry and his team are still equally working with Netanyahu in the interest of the American Jewish front to arrive at a formula that would allow face-to-face peace talks to resume.
Anyone who observes the language used by the U.S. with Israel will doubtlessly have the impression that the Americans are essentially beseeching Israel to agree on the talks. There are no indications or body language in the talks that reflect the simple fact that after 46 years, Israel is still the aggressor and the entire international community has determined that Israel must change its political trajectory.
Europeans who are attempting to help, without revealing that they are taking the place of American efforts, have focused on the need to invest in the Jordan Valley and other regions in “Area C.” They are also strongly pushing for a separate and entitled process that would put an end to counterfeiting products produced in existing settlements in occupied Palestine as products of Israel, which then subsequently receive preferential treatment on the basis of trade agreements between Israel and the European Union.
The U.S. refuses to exert any pressure on Israel. There is not a carrot and a stick in Washington’s plan, just a carrot. Meanwhile, Israelis are enjoying every cent of U.S. taxpayers’ “generosity.”
The United States’ regional and global interests are still confined to this excessive flattery, which Israel so undeservedly receives. There will come a time when Americans wake up to this simple fact. The sooner this happens, the better for all involved parties, and the better for peace.