Although I’ve found myself repeatedly disappointed by Barack Obama when it comes to Palestine, one has to admit – there have been a couple marginally positive developments recently. It’s too early to start celebrating but we’ve heard some ‘tough’ talk from the administration, especially when it comes to settlements. For example, the AIPAC conference may have been another showcase for Zionist butt-licking, and while (Zionist) Joe Biden was no exception to the rule, his comments on settlement activity were noteworthy. Obama is also expected to continue hammering that message.
It’s not much and it’s definitely not enough; but it’s a start. And there’s more…
A friend recently sent me an interesting article from Haaretz. Its authors described the concern Israeli officials are feeling over the decreasing level of cooperation with Washington.
“Obama’s people brief their Israeli counterparts in advance much less about security and Middle East policy activities than the Bush administration used to,” the officials said.
In addition, when they do brief Israeli officials, they don’t consult with them or coordinate their statements in advance.
This has caused several coordination “malfunctions” between the two states in the past two months, they said.
In other words, it seems the Obama administration has not been coordinating with the state of Israel when formulating its foreign policy, whether on Syria, Iran, or the question of Palestine itself. A refreshing change from the Bush years where virtually everything was vetted by Israel. Needless to say, this is a good thing.
Even better, some Israeli officials are saying, “the new administration no longer seems to see Israel as a ‘special’ or ‘extraordinary’ state in the Middle East with which the US must maintain a different dialogue.” Good! So things are finally changing? That would be great… but I’m not breaking out the champagne just yet.
Relations are still evolving. The Israeli government is still coming together, and to a lesser extent, the same is true in Washington. Perhaps things will change after Bibi’s visit and the months that follow, but regardless of how much autonomy Obama and his colleagues continue to exhibit, their hands will be tied by Congress. The fact remains – Israel receives preferential treatment. It will be a long time before that changes.
The influence is still strong. Haaretz reports that the US has incorporated former FM Tzipi Livni’s proposals into their Middle East policy. That’s a shame. Trying to woe Arab countries into the ‘moderate’ fold and seeking to isolate Hamas is not the answer. The onus is on Israel to make change. Of course it helps if Washington pushes them in that direction… and I’ll be happy when that day comes.
For now, it’s good to be firm about settlement activity, which has gotten out of control. That is the easiest issue to address, but it requires more than just talk; there need to be consequence for Israeli intransigence. Nevertheless, if Obama and company manage to put an end to the continued colonization of Palestine – and that’s a big if – I’d be curious to see their stance on the other important issues, especially like Jerusalem. There’s still a long way to go.
Hopefully the bigoted Israeli government will continue to screw up. Hopefully Netanyahu’s arrogance and extremism will convince Barack that he needs to look away and do what’s right. It may seem as though the future looks promising, but let’s not get our hopes up yet.
[Tarboush tip: Osama]
Related posts:
- Helen Thomas Delivers Again
- Clinton Talks Dirty to Israel
- Jimmy Carter… Making Trouble
- “Ah think Mr. Bush is an obstacle to peace, he he he”
- Neo-Con Men
Indeed. The unquestioning US bias towards Israel over so many decades has not helped. The only solution that has any remote prospect of success would be a 2 state solution but I can certainly see how Palestinians have given up on the idea, believing that the only version available would be one on Israel's terms.
Posted by xoggoth | May 10, 2009, 4:18 pmEEEEXXXXCCCCEEEELLLLEEENNNNTTTTT analysis and assssment by Kalash.
Posted by A H | May 10, 2009, 5:31 pmEvery American president since Carter has gone through the ritual of denouncing the settlements, but none of them has ever exercised his power to compel Israel to stop building them. Actions speak louder than words, and there has never been any US action against Israel, just talk. This is all just theater, and there will be some "serious disagreements" and "grave concern" being expressed after which nothing will be done and nothing will change. After the Freeman case and the AIPAC spy case, Obama needs to demonstrate that he isn't Israel's bitch and I imagine he has gotten Israel's approval to do so. If I am wrong about this I will be happy to eat my words. There's always a chance Obama might rediscover his soul somewhere along the line, but so far, he's been as predictable as the sunrise.
Posted by Sean2009 | May 10, 2009, 11:36 pmWord. The Bush administration repeatedly called the settlements 'unhelpful' but it's unwillingness to do anything about it was tacit approval to continue expanding. There is almost no contiguous land left for Palestinian use in the West Bank and Obama and co's reluctance to apply any real pressure on Israel is another sign of tacit approval. These settlements are not shacks and tents; they are permanent towns and cities. Talking the talk doesn't mean the slightest, the world has been talking since the settlement project began three decades ago and will continue talking until it is complete and we are walled inside the bantustans. I believe the Israeli press' daily obsession with possible future disagreements with Washington is making a lot of people miss the forest for the trees. If tgere is any change it is in tone, not policy.
Posted by MohammadKF | May 11, 2009, 10:48 amThose of us who supported Barack Obama feel enormously vindicated and I think its becoming obvious that he truly is invested in the Palestinian cause in a way that no other US president ever was and that we were right all along, I think it truly is a priority for him, for example he refused to conflate the issue of Palestinian statehood with question of peace with Syria (as the Israelis wanted to him to). Its true, dismantling the settlements is going to be very difficult, near impossible, but the permanent ones could be swapped with cities from inside the Green Line- like the Trangle area, though 48ers freak out when anybody mentions this, they literally go pale at the thought, it ultimately isn't up to them, I think a lot of them will end up Palestinian, whether they like it or not!
Posted by Jerusalemite | May 11, 2009, 4:52 pmJerusalemite, if you feel vindicated by Obama's stance vis a vis Palestine then your expectations must have been microscopically small. The man has said and done nothing different from every other US president before him when it comes to this issue. I don't understand why things seem more hopeful out of his mouth-pay attention to the message, not the messenger. By the way, 48ers should be going pale at the prospect of being absorbed into the bantustans and being cut off from their homeland. We all should be going pale at that idea. Additionally, Israel is actively connecting smaller settlements with the larger blocks (by confiscating even more Palestinian land). Just how much of the West Bank are you prepared to 'swap'?
Posted by MohammadKF | May 12, 2009, 8:00 amOf course my expectations were small, anyone remotely familiar with the nature of US-Israeli relations would never get their hopes up in terms of that relationship changing to something more reasonable. The real issue here is that, when considered in the context of US-Israeli history, Obama does in fact represent a small break from the past, for example, its always important to bear in mind that among other things he does not have the Evangelical Christian fervor that presidents like Bush and even Clinton did. This isn't about the cult-like fascination Obama (though deservedly at times) draws from people, and an effort to boil it down to that is insulting, its about the context he emerged from, would you have preferred McCain, the man who compared Rashid Khalidi to a Nazi to have won?? You obviously don't know any 48ers, because it isn't the prospect of being cut off from their homelands that terrifies them, its the prospect of losing the benefits they derive as Israeli citizens that drives them into panic attacks. Most of them are a bunch of hypocrites, who when they're not writing dumb, pretentious poems trying to pass themselves off as committed to the Palestinian cause- are otherwise complaining how different and superior they are not only to other Palestinians but to all other Arabs in general, an argument they present along with stupid "horror" stories from their travels to Egypt and Jordan. They are all messed up in one way or another, whether they be Muslim, Christian or Druze, but what they have yet to realize is that Israeli society will never truly embrace them, because to an Israeli Jew, if you're not born to a Jewish mother then khalas you don't really amount to anything. So yeah swapping some of the larger settlements for the Triangle makes sense, because the residents of that particular area are highly educated and would contribute to Palestinian society, maybe then they can put their money where their mouth is.
Posted by Jerusalemite | May 12, 2009, 12:47 pmAgain, I look for deeds, not words, and so far Obama has come up short. The second part of your reply is offensive and childish, stereotyping an entire group of people. It is not worthy of a reply. Finally, I said we should go pale at the thought of swapping the Triangle for the settlements for two reasons: it legitimizes the colonization of the West Bank, and it goes a long way to making Israel in its 1948 borders a purely Jewish state.
Posted by MohammadKF | May 12, 2009, 8:31 pm