Few Roads Lead to Peace
Barack Obama has stated that he is more than willing to establish a peace in the Middle East that preserves Palestinian rights but is that really anything new? If we look back at the previous American presidents and their efforts for peace, we will reach a dead and rather depressing end.
Every American president has said that he wants to host a meeting between the Israeli government and the Arabian leaders to discuss peace negotiations. Ironically, George W. Bush was a president deeply biased towards the Israeli government but he was also the first to admit to Palestine’s right to a nation as powerful and prosperous as her neighbor. All of this after dividing Palestine according to colonial regulations was the only step Bush’s predecessors were willing to take. But does that mean George W. Bush outdid Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton?
The answer is laced with ambiguousness; Jimmy Carter was and still is inclined to believe that the U.S. has historically leaned too heavily on the side of Israel. He has even published a book on the subject. However, during his presidency, Carter had no plan to establish peace in the Middle East on his presidential agenda until the last months of the presidential election cycle. Why was that? It could have been part of an election strategy laid out by his advisors or merely a tactic to appease Arabian allies.
In this context, Obama’s efforts during his time in office thus far have defined him as a leader who is seeking a definitive peace between Israel and Palestine. He has made the Israeli-Palestinian peace process a top priority, coupled with his ardent desire to repair America’s image throughout the Arabian world. Those who are keeping a close watch on the new president’s performance in the White House have much to be optimistic about; Obama has already made a point to visit Turkey, Egypt and Iraq while many of his predecessors spent the majority of their time kowtowing to Israeli leaders both at home and abroad.
The current Israeli government is one of the more extreme since the founding of Israel in 1948 in terms of recognizing Palestine. No politically vigilant person could disagree with that statement. Even Sarkozy himself urged Netanyahu to seize any opportunity to replace Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, with his more levelheaded predecessor, Tzipi Livni. Netanyahu defended Avigdor Lieberman, saying “He is well mannered during private sessions”. Sarkozy responded, “So was Jean-Marie Le Pen [An infamous French right-wing extremist]”.
There is no doubt; this banter was unexpected, especially after Netanyahu’s efforts during visits to Paris and Rome to depict himself as a peaceful leader in the Middle East. Netanyahu pointed out that “there is no way to compare…” the two men; Lieberman is the powerful Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and Le Pen was merely a member of the French parliament. But, as Sarkozy coolly replied, “I wasn’t comparing”.
Currently, Obama has 4 years, at least, to face a forsaken Isreali government. It should be noted that Obama has indicated to voters and to the Israeli government that he holds the keys to the Kremlin; Moscow, Obama has claimed, would stand by Israel. It was not long ago, however, that Russia invited representative of Hamas to participate in a recent conference to be held in the Russian capital. Now, there is no place for Lieberman’s hoped-for alliance with Moscow.
And so the Israeli government finds that it must again use evasive tactics to avoid another American administration with peace-keeping intentions, much like Israel managed to dodge any real settlement in the Bush era, stalling and stirring up trouble in outlying settlements. As we speak, the Israelis are negotiating their reward from the White House should they stop stealing land in the West Bank and promise to build only for “natural growth” purposes. It appears that Obama’s administration has only two options: submit to Israel’s demands (and Netanyahu’s and Lieberman’s maneuvering) or put down this open rebellion against America’s authority.
Every American president has said that he wants to host a meeting between the Israeli government and the Arabian leaders to discuss peace negotiations. Ironically, George W. Bush was a president deeply biased towards the Israeli government but he was also the first to admit to Palestine’s right to a nation as powerful and prosperous as her neighbor. All of this after dividing Palestine according to colonial regulations was the only step Bush’s predecessors were willing to take. But does that mean George W. Bush outdid Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton?
The answer is laced with ambiguousness; Jimmy Carter was and still is inclined to believe that the U.S. has historically leaned too heavily on the side of Israel. He has even published a book on the subject. However, during his presidency, Carter had no plan to establish peace in the Middle East on his presidential agenda until the last months of the presidential election cycle. Why was that? It could have been part of an election strategy laid out by his advisors or merely a tactic to appease Arabian allies.
In this context, Obama’s efforts during his time in office thus far have defined him as a leader who is seeking a definitive peace between Israel and Palestine. He has made the Israeli-Palestinian peace process a top priority, coupled with his ardent desire to repair America’s image throughout the Arabian world. Those who are keeping a close watch on the new president’s performance in the White House have much to be optimistic about; Obama has already made a point to visit Turkey, Egypt and Iraq while many of his predecessors spent the majority of their time kowtowing to Israeli leaders both at home and abroad.
The current Israeli government is one of the more extreme since the founding of Israel in 1948 in terms of recognizing Palestine. No politically vigilant person could disagree with that statement. Even Sarkozy himself urged Netanyahu to seize any opportunity to replace Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, with his more levelheaded predecessor, Tzipi Livni. Netanyahu defended Avigdor Lieberman, saying “He is well mannered during private sessions”. Sarkozy responded, “So was Jean-Marie Le Pen [An infamous French right-wing extremist]”.
There is no doubt; this banter was unexpected, especially after Netanyahu’s efforts during visits to Paris and Rome to depict himself as a peaceful leader in the Middle East. Netanyahu pointed out that “there is no way to compare…” the two men; Lieberman is the powerful Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and Le Pen was merely a member of the French parliament. But, as Sarkozy coolly replied, “I wasn’t comparing”.
Currently, Obama has 4 years, at least, to face a forsaken Isreali government. It should be noted that Obama has indicated to voters and to the Israeli government that he holds the keys to the Kremlin; Moscow, Obama has claimed, would stand by Israel. It was not long ago, however, that Russia invited representative of Hamas to participate in a recent conference to be held in the Russian capital. Now, there is no place for Lieberman’s hoped-for alliance with Moscow.
And so the Israeli government finds that it must again use evasive tactics to avoid another American administration with peace-keeping intentions, much like Israel managed to dodge any real settlement in the Bush era, stalling and stirring up trouble in outlying settlements. As we speak, the Israelis are negotiating their reward from the White House should they stop stealing land in the West Bank and promise to build only for “natural growth” purposes. It appears that Obama’s administration has only two options: submit to Israel’s demands (and Netanyahu’s and Lieberman’s maneuvering) or put down this open rebellion against America’s authority.
Next article![]( "U.S. Denounces ProposedSettlement in East Jerusalem")