Is Obama Genuine about Contributing to Israeli-Palestinian Peace?
Just as U.S. President Barack Obama was visiting Europe to raise support for the new Middle East policy, Israeli President Netanyahu was giving a speech in front of the American Congress. In it, Netanyahu maintained that “Israel absolutely cannot return to the 1967 territorial boundaries” and Israel “must have enough land to protect land to ensure a sense of safety.” He also reiterated his position on not negotiating with the Hamas-backed Palestinian government. This is after his talk and face-to-face meeting with Obama on May 20; once again he has expressed his unyielding stance on the issue of Israel’s borders. This has delayed Obama’s new Middle East policy and the proposal of taking the 1967 boundaries as the basis for this policy. It has also delayed the already long-stalled Palestinian-Israeli peace talks and provided support to the proposal of establishing a Palestinian state.
Before departing for Europe, Obama gave a speech announcing the elements of “promoting peace, increasing aid and encouraging democracy” for the new Middle East policy. This speech is his most recent in a series of speeches addressing the topic. Analysts have pointed out that with his trip to Europe, Obama is also hoping to market this new policy and garner the support of other large countries. Middle Eastern and North African countries have given Obama’s policy a lukewarm response. A week after Obama gave his pitch, the only thing still attracting people’s attention is Netanyahu’s continual objection to the proposal.
In his speech to Congress, Netanyahu professed to be preparing to make painful concessions; he expressed a willingness to let go part of the Jewish settlement in the West Bank in exchange for peace with the Palestinians. This sentiment was met with rounds of applause. But shortly after this conciliatory statement was a long list of harsh peace talk requirements: Palestine must recognize Israel as a Jewish state; Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas must burn all bridges with Hamas; Palestine and Israel must consult one another and have open discussions. Netanyahu also warned Palestine not to seek unilateral state establishment at the convening of the UN General Assembly. He also said that only through consulting with one another could peace be won.
The Guardian and other media outlets immediately issued comments such as “don’t be deceived by the sound of applause.” Although Netanyahu’s speech met with resounding applause in Congress, his inability to compromise unsettled the American Jewish community. The Daily Telegraph said “Netanyahu has isolated Obama.” Israeli media has generally applauded the speech. The Jerusalem Post claimed Netanyahu has again confirmed Israel and America’s strong link.
On Palestine’s side, they have issued a statement of “cautious welcome” to the new Middle East policy. Until now they have said that they cannot accept the peace talk requirements Netanyahu put forth. President Mahmoud Abbas’s spokesperson has said that Israel has put up more obstacles to peace in the Middle East.
The new Middle East policy was once thought to be Obama’s first important expression of support for Palestine. But as China Foundation for International Studies Director An Huihou pointed out to the author, as Obama nears election time he cannot abandon the support of Jewish voters. Furthermore, Jewish Americans’ interest in preserving Israel is unwavering.
An Huihou said that after Obama and Netanyahu spoke on May 20, Obama stressed two points: First, the U.S. guarantees it will safeguard Israel from any threats and maintain Israel’s military advantage; second, the issue of “taking the 1967 boundaries as a starting point” comes with some leeway. This pacifying backpedaling exposes the fact that Obama has run out of tactics to soften Israel’s harsh stance on settling its border issues.
In view of the claim that “Palestine and Israel will meet a resolution within one year” (which was issued in the Cairo speeches nearly three years ago), the fact that after a few halting steps toward peace talks they have once again broken off is not very surprising. An Huihou points out that Middle Eastern countries’ responses to Obama’s push for the new Middle East policy have been flat. They sense that this proposal is likely to be another one of America’s empty promises. Also, as long as the Obama administration continues to unfairly protect Israel, pushing for Palestinian-Israeli peace is an empty gesture. The illusions of peace Obama has given the Palestinians cannot lead to genuine resolution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Before departing for Europe, Obama gave a speech announcing the elements of “promoting peace, increasing aid and encouraging democracy” for the new Middle East policy. This speech is his most recent in a series of speeches addressing the topic. Analysts have pointed out that with his trip to Europe, Obama is also hoping to market this new policy and garner the support of other large countries. Middle Eastern and North African countries have given Obama’s policy a lukewarm response. A week after Obama gave his pitch, the only thing still attracting people’s attention is Netanyahu’s continual objection to the proposal.
In his speech to Congress, Netanyahu professed to be preparing to make painful concessions; he expressed a willingness to let go part of the Jewish settlement in the West Bank in exchange for peace with the Palestinians. This sentiment was met with rounds of applause. But shortly after this conciliatory statement was a long list of harsh peace talk requirements: Palestine must recognize Israel as a Jewish state; Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas must burn all bridges with Hamas; Palestine and Israel must consult one another and have open discussions. Netanyahu also warned Palestine not to seek unilateral state establishment at the convening of the UN General Assembly. He also said that only through consulting with one another could peace be won.
The Guardian and other media outlets immediately issued comments such as “don’t be deceived by the sound of applause.” Although Netanyahu’s speech met with resounding applause in Congress, his inability to compromise unsettled the American Jewish community. The Daily Telegraph said “Netanyahu has isolated Obama.” Israeli media has generally applauded the speech. The Jerusalem Post claimed Netanyahu has again confirmed Israel and America’s strong link.
On Palestine’s side, they have issued a statement of “cautious welcome” to the new Middle East policy. Until now they have said that they cannot accept the peace talk requirements Netanyahu put forth. President Mahmoud Abbas’s spokesperson has said that Israel has put up more obstacles to peace in the Middle East.
The new Middle East policy was once thought to be Obama’s first important expression of support for Palestine. But as China Foundation for International Studies Director An Huihou pointed out to the author, as Obama nears election time he cannot abandon the support of Jewish voters. Furthermore, Jewish Americans’ interest in preserving Israel is unwavering.
An Huihou said that after Obama and Netanyahu spoke on May 20, Obama stressed two points: First, the U.S. guarantees it will safeguard Israel from any threats and maintain Israel’s military advantage; second, the issue of “taking the 1967 boundaries as a starting point” comes with some leeway. This pacifying backpedaling exposes the fact that Obama has run out of tactics to soften Israel’s harsh stance on settling its border issues.
In view of the claim that “Palestine and Israel will meet a resolution within one year” (which was issued in the Cairo speeches nearly three years ago), the fact that after a few halting steps toward peace talks they have once again broken off is not very surprising. An Huihou points out that Middle Eastern countries’ responses to Obama’s push for the new Middle East policy have been flat. They sense that this proposal is likely to be another one of America’s empty promises. Also, as long as the Obama administration continues to unfairly protect Israel, pushing for Palestinian-Israeli peace is an empty gesture. The illusions of peace Obama has given the Palestinians cannot lead to genuine resolution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.