Hillary's Middle East saga
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's excursion to the Middle East has the look about it of a leader responding to the latest political pressure point. She goes to Jerusalem and says that Israeli settlements should not stand in the way of negotiations, and even compliments the Netanyahu government for the steps it has taken. She then proceeds to Morocco and says that America has always opposed Israeli settlements and Israel is very far from meeting American expectations on the subject. Despite the appearance of pandering to local concerns, the Secretary of State's trip has been important in setting straight American priorities in an effort to get the peace process back on track. Let's be clear. The tension that has arisen between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government since last spring is not about Israeli settlements per se, but about how Israeli settlements fit in to the larger challenge of peacemaking. American presidents one after another have opposed Israeli settlements since the 1970s when the settler movement truly emerged. Some did so with greater vigor than others, in particular Jimmy Carter, who not only criticized settlements but also said that they were an obstacle to peace, and George Bush the elder, who held up loan guarantees as long as Israel continued settlement expansion. So, as Secretary Clinton said in Morocco, the Obama administration was hardly breaking new ground in its demand that Israel freeze settlement building. Where it was moving in a new direction was in taking previous comments about settlements being an obstacle to peace and making that the centerpiece of American policy. In fact, Israeli settlements, whether one supported them or opposed them, had never prevented negotiations from taking place when the will to negotiate otherwise existed. But now, by the US insisting that Israel freeze settlements as a precondition to restarting negotiations, we were indeed creating a reality which did not exist heretofore: Settlements were blocking peace talks. Palestinians now said they wouldn't negotiate as long as Israel continued to expand settlements. After meeting with Obama, what's next?
I had the opportunity to meet with President Barack Obama at the White House on July 13, along with fifteen other representatives of Jewish organizations. Afterwards, everyone wanted to know whether I now felt reassured about the state of US-Israel relations. Standing with Iranians against tyranny
As history is being made on the streets of Teheran, the Western world is relatively quiet. Yes, President Barack Obama has at last referred to the injustice of the regime's actions and criticized its violence, but he and other leaders have calibrated their responses. Two Israel writers, Ben Caspit and Ben-Dror Yemini, have taken note and chastised the West for this reticence, contrasting how quickly condemnation of Israel rises to the surface in moments of crisis. They suggest that in certain circles it is far easier to criticize a Jew for killing a Muslim, even when provoked, than when a Muslim regime murders innocent protesters. They simply dismiss the argument made by many American officials and commentators that the restrained approach is the correct one to prevent the regime from using American "meddling" to undermine the legitimacy of the demonstrators. They reason that this is just an excuse for inaction since the Iranian leaders are already blaming America and Israel. Seeing the glass half full - for now
Perspective is everything. The glass can be half full or half empty. These unoriginal thoughts came to mind after two significant events in the life of the state of Israel and the Jewish people - the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Israel and the meeting between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The tendency in the Israeli press was to focus on the negative. The Pope was widely criticized for the things he failed to say or said in an infelicitous way. And the Washington summit meeting was picked apart for the alleged lack of warmth between the leaders and for the pressure points and disagreements. What Clinton's trip augurs for Israel
So what are the earliest vibes about the Obama administration's Middle East approach based on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to the region? Overall, I'd say positive, with reason for some optimism, but also with a note of caution. Up front, candidate Obama made clear that the big break from his predecessor would be in the area of engagement. An Obama administration would see the issues between Israel and the Arabs as a priority that required US involvement early on. And so we are seeing it, with the appointment and visits of George Mitchell as special envoy and with this early trip of the secretary of state. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (16)
