America Stands Up to Israel
Published in Al Quds
(Palestine) on 14 April 2010
by Mustafa Zain (link to original)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was enthusiastic about the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington but decided at the last minute not to go. His pretext was that the American administration might stand by while Arab and Islamic countries introduced the Israeli nuclear issue.
Is that true? Have the disputes between the two parties reached these limits? Has Israel become hesitant or afraid to face the Arabs, even in the presence of its American patron?
Netanyahu's handlers accuse Washington of waging a campaign to weaken him and get rid of him. It's a campaign that, according to people close to him, consists of politicians, journalists and businessmen who aim at inciting public opinion against him because he threatens both U.S. and Israeli interests. Peace talks and achieving progress in the negotiations with Palestinians will convince more Arab countries to be open with Israel, to break the ties between Syria and Iran and to form a united front to confront their nuclear and non-nuclear ambitions.
American supporters of Israel explain that many Arab countries have expressed their willingness to participate in the U.S. vision, a notion seen by Israelis as naïve. They cite the strength of the Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli agreements, despite the obstacles: the wars launched by Israel against Lebanon and Palestine, pressure from public opinion, and criticism from non-Arab Muslim countries, such as Iran and Turkey, about Gaza and Jerusalem.
They say that Israel believes that a powerful Islamic Iran is an existential threat to her, yet Israel prefers not help Washington or herself remove this threat by political means and diplomacy. Israel prefers military solutions and has not learned that war is not the solution. War complicates matters more and allows enemies to present nearly impenetrable united front, something proven by the 2006 war with Lebanon.
The current U.S. administration understands the lessons learned from the wars waged by the previous administration either by itself or with allies. It prefers international cooperation and strives for it; it is about to persuade Russia and China to adopt tough sanctions against the Iranian regime. The administration regards attacking Iran as a complication of the situation in the Middle East that will hinder troop withdrawal from Iraq and worsen the war in Afghanistan.
In addition, Arab and non-Arab countries in the region are advising against an attack on Iran not out of love for the Islamic system but because they will be most severely affected, both materially and morally. There is nothing to insure against civil strife that would cause general chaos and instability, which would be in no one’s favor but the extremists.
Netanyahu and his government are quite different if not inconsistent with the American vision. The ruling right wing party dreams of and plans for wars; for them, the use of force is the only reason Arabs make concessions. The Jewish identity and society protects Israel, and they will not give up their settlements or Jerusalem.
Netanyahu is preparing to step up, as he depends on his relations with the United States as a weapon in the face-off. His opponents fear cutting the life veins to their states. For the first time, the U.S. is using its influence on Israel to stand up to Netanyahu internationally and AIPAC domestically. Tzipi Livni considers the whole government as “full of evil,” assuring that neither she nor her party will participate unless there is a change in policy.
The dispute between Washington and Tel Aviv concerns the protection of American and Israeli interests not the legitimacy of such interests. As for us [Arabs], it's like watching a play even though we don’t care how it ends.
Is that true? Have the disputes between the two parties reached these limits? Has Israel become hesitant or afraid to face the Arabs, even in the presence of its American patron?
Netanyahu's handlers accuse Washington of waging a campaign to weaken him and get rid of him. It's a campaign that, according to people close to him, consists of politicians, journalists and businessmen who aim at inciting public opinion against him because he threatens both U.S. and Israeli interests. Peace talks and achieving progress in the negotiations with Palestinians will convince more Arab countries to be open with Israel, to break the ties between Syria and Iran and to form a united front to confront their nuclear and non-nuclear ambitions.
American supporters of Israel explain that many Arab countries have expressed their willingness to participate in the U.S. vision, a notion seen by Israelis as naïve. They cite the strength of the Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian-Israeli agreements, despite the obstacles: the wars launched by Israel against Lebanon and Palestine, pressure from public opinion, and criticism from non-Arab Muslim countries, such as Iran and Turkey, about Gaza and Jerusalem.
They say that Israel believes that a powerful Islamic Iran is an existential threat to her, yet Israel prefers not help Washington or herself remove this threat by political means and diplomacy. Israel prefers military solutions and has not learned that war is not the solution. War complicates matters more and allows enemies to present nearly impenetrable united front, something proven by the 2006 war with Lebanon.
The current U.S. administration understands the lessons learned from the wars waged by the previous administration either by itself or with allies. It prefers international cooperation and strives for it; it is about to persuade Russia and China to adopt tough sanctions against the Iranian regime. The administration regards attacking Iran as a complication of the situation in the Middle East that will hinder troop withdrawal from Iraq and worsen the war in Afghanistan.
In addition, Arab and non-Arab countries in the region are advising against an attack on Iran not out of love for the Islamic system but because they will be most severely affected, both materially and morally. There is nothing to insure against civil strife that would cause general chaos and instability, which would be in no one’s favor but the extremists.
Netanyahu and his government are quite different if not inconsistent with the American vision. The ruling right wing party dreams of and plans for wars; for them, the use of force is the only reason Arabs make concessions. The Jewish identity and society protects Israel, and they will not give up their settlements or Jerusalem.
Netanyahu is preparing to step up, as he depends on his relations with the United States as a weapon in the face-off. His opponents fear cutting the life veins to their states. For the first time, the U.S. is using its influence on Israel to stand up to Netanyahu internationally and AIPAC domestically. Tzipi Livni considers the whole government as “full of evil,” assuring that neither she nor her party will participate unless there is a change in policy.
The dispute between Washington and Tel Aviv concerns the protection of American and Israeli interests not the legitimacy of such interests. As for us [Arabs], it's like watching a play even though we don’t care how it ends.