Obama Insists on Israeli Settlement Freeze
Published in Der Tagesspiegel
(Germany) on 29 May 2009
by Christoph von Marschall (link to
original)
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas received a warmer reception in the White House than did Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama told Netanyahu to stop expanding Israeli settlements in the occupied areas.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had his first official meeting with United States President Barack Obama on Thursday evening, 10 days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his first visit. Perhaps Abbas had the advantage of hindsight, but the atmosphere during the discussions was noticeably friendlier.
Obama pushed for new peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, noting that the world had watched despair grow in the Near East for too long. But, although he asked Netanyahu for specific actions - a stop to the building of settlements on the West Bank, for example – he made no comparable requests to Abbas that could cause him any difficulties on the domestic policy front.
The U.S. media have noted a change in behavior compared to the Bush administration that mainly supported Israeli policy, but they have refrained from drawing conclusions as to the motives behind the difference in treatment of the two guests. One explanation targets their different levels of power: Netanyahu is a new head of state elected with a clear majority who visited the White House with a sense of self-confidence.
Obama was equally self-confident in presenting the American position: Israel had to change and indicate its willingness to accept the creation of a Palestinian state with the same borders it had in 1967. The construction of new settlements on Palestinian territory was at odds with that goal.
Abbas, on the other hand, visits America as a weak president with little domestic support. He controls only a portion of Palestine, the West Bank. In the Gaza Strip, his Hamas opponents are in power, and Obama doesn’t want to make matters worse by forcing Abbas into a political corner.
The other interpretation highlights the difference between the Bush and Obama positions. The new president is no longer willing to accept the excuse that the time for peace talks isn’t right. Israel insists Iran should first be forced to abandon its nuclear program, something they consider a threat to Israel’s existence. Additionally, they want Iran to withdraw all support for anti-Israeli terror groups, like Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Israelis insist that only then can they consider negotiations with the Palestinians.
Obama doesn’t accept this order of priorities – first Iran and then Palestine. He made the case for the opposite approach during the Abbas visit: Failure to conclude a Near East peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he says, hinders the solution of other problems in the region.
It’s disconcerting to the Israelis that other people in the Obama administration, who were previously supportive of Israel, have now become critics. Among them is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "He (Obama) wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions," she said this week. Israel points out that “natural growth” in the settlements cannot be stopped and uses that excuse to justify continuing colonization.
Israel was caught off guard by Clinton’s blunt language. This change in tone from its most important ally has caused a certain amount of nervousness in Israel. Martin Indyk, an influential former U.S. ambassador to Israel and now leader of the Saban Center for Near East Policy in Washington, says that the spirit of the times has changed in America. Jewish communities in the U.S., as well as many Israelis, are tired of the fact that the settlement issue is torpedoing prospects for peace. After Abbas’ meeting with Obama, the question still clearly remains whether the president will actually follow up his strong rhetoric with equally strong actions.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had his first official meeting with United States President Barack Obama on Thursday evening, 10 days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his first visit. Perhaps Abbas had the advantage of hindsight, but the atmosphere during the discussions was noticeably friendlier.
Obama pushed for new peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, noting that the world had watched despair grow in the Near East for too long. But, although he asked Netanyahu for specific actions - a stop to the building of settlements on the West Bank, for example – he made no comparable requests to Abbas that could cause him any difficulties on the domestic policy front.
The U.S. media have noted a change in behavior compared to the Bush administration that mainly supported Israeli policy, but they have refrained from drawing conclusions as to the motives behind the difference in treatment of the two guests. One explanation targets their different levels of power: Netanyahu is a new head of state elected with a clear majority who visited the White House with a sense of self-confidence.
Obama was equally self-confident in presenting the American position: Israel had to change and indicate its willingness to accept the creation of a Palestinian state with the same borders it had in 1967. The construction of new settlements on Palestinian territory was at odds with that goal.
Abbas, on the other hand, visits America as a weak president with little domestic support. He controls only a portion of Palestine, the West Bank. In the Gaza Strip, his Hamas opponents are in power, and Obama doesn’t want to make matters worse by forcing Abbas into a political corner.
The other interpretation highlights the difference between the Bush and Obama positions. The new president is no longer willing to accept the excuse that the time for peace talks isn’t right. Israel insists Iran should first be forced to abandon its nuclear program, something they consider a threat to Israel’s existence. Additionally, they want Iran to withdraw all support for anti-Israeli terror groups, like Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Israelis insist that only then can they consider negotiations with the Palestinians.
Obama doesn’t accept this order of priorities – first Iran and then Palestine. He made the case for the opposite approach during the Abbas visit: Failure to conclude a Near East peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he says, hinders the solution of other problems in the region.
It’s disconcerting to the Israelis that other people in the Obama administration, who were previously supportive of Israel, have now become critics. Among them is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "He (Obama) wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions," she said this week. Israel points out that “natural growth” in the settlements cannot be stopped and uses that excuse to justify continuing colonization.
Israel was caught off guard by Clinton’s blunt language. This change in tone from its most important ally has caused a certain amount of nervousness in Israel. Martin Indyk, an influential former U.S. ambassador to Israel and now leader of the Saban Center for Near East Policy in Washington, says that the spirit of the times has changed in America. Jewish communities in the U.S., as well as many Israelis, are tired of the fact that the settlement issue is torpedoing prospects for peace. After Abbas’ meeting with Obama, the question still clearly remains whether the president will actually follow up his strong rhetoric with equally strong actions.
If Obama had a set of BALLS, he would turn of the money machine to the scum-bag zionists till they did what he tells them to do. But in America we let these scum-bags murder our sailors and citizens, and we even let their spys go when we catch them. And we have two houses of congress full of pimps and whores who work for the zionists.America has turned into the joke of the world.