Obama and Netanyahu meet
Finally it happened, the meeting between the new President of the USA and the new PM of Israel. It was fair to expect that there would be good rapport between the two leaders. PM Netanyahu showed his obeisance at the feet of the great new liberal-minded leader of the free world. And Pres. Obama was supportive of Israel, because the US must always support it's allies and he also needs to show the American Jews who voted for him that he is a friend of Israel. PM Netanyahu has a delicate political coalition to maintain and Pres. Obama would not want to be the cause of a breakdown in Israeli governance by pressuring Israel beyond a certain point. Given these limitations, there was no likelihood of any public "collision course" between the two leaders as had been envisaged by the not so pro-Israel media.
Obama reiterated his commitment to a "two state solution," pointing out that Israel has accepted that formulation in the Road Map and Annapolis process of his predecessor, George W. Bush. But, Netanyahu managed to avoid that precise formulation, preferring to point out that the aim is for the "two peoples" to co-exist in peace, and stating that the Palestinains need to recognize Israel as "a Jewish State."
Beyond that, Obama asked Netanyahu to make certain concessions to the Palestinians, in order to let him off the hook with the Arabs, such as stopping all settlement activity (notwithstanding the fact that Israel needs to use this card in negotiations). This is the traditional American stance, whoever is the President, Israel must make concessions, while the Palestinians continue as before, being terrorists, killing Israelis and each other, and there is no chance of a realistic "peace process," but that doesn't matter. There are also moves by the Obama Administration, notably in a speech by VP Joe Biden, to engage the "moderate" Sunni Arab States in positive responses to Israeli concessions, such as opening telephone communications and airline connections. This makes the Palestinians nervous, so Saeb Erakat issued a statement that the Arab States should not "reward" Israel if it agrees to a settlement freeze (actually no new official settlements are being built, only expansions of existing settlements and of Jerusalem).
In return for his cooperation, Netanyahu asked Obama for support in increasing the pressure on Iran. However, Netanyahu's attempt to finesse Obama into an "Iran first" option did not work. Obama reiterated his policy of "extending a hand in peace" to Iran; he will wait until after the June elections and then attempt talks, and if that doesn't work "by the end of the year" then perhaps he might consider more sanctions. Meanwhile Iran races forward to make nuclear weapons to use on you know who. This kind of prevarication passes for policy in the liberal mind-set. It will do nothing to allay Israel's and Netanyahu's fears. To those who say that there is no such thing as a "military solution," I point to the end-game that has just taken place in Sri Lanka, not to mention the improved situation in Iraq.
Maybe both leaders will agree on a statement of Israeli Government intentions to resume peace negotiations with the PA as soon as possible, and neither will directly link Iran with the Palestine-Israel conflict or vice versa. Either way the diplomatic niceties will be covered, at least publicly.
Obama reiterated his commitment to a "two state solution," pointing out that Israel has accepted that formulation in the Road Map and Annapolis process of his predecessor, George W. Bush. But, Netanyahu managed to avoid that precise formulation, preferring to point out that the aim is for the "two peoples" to co-exist in peace, and stating that the Palestinains need to recognize Israel as "a Jewish State."
Beyond that, Obama asked Netanyahu to make certain concessions to the Palestinians, in order to let him off the hook with the Arabs, such as stopping all settlement activity (notwithstanding the fact that Israel needs to use this card in negotiations). This is the traditional American stance, whoever is the President, Israel must make concessions, while the Palestinians continue as before, being terrorists, killing Israelis and each other, and there is no chance of a realistic "peace process," but that doesn't matter. There are also moves by the Obama Administration, notably in a speech by VP Joe Biden, to engage the "moderate" Sunni Arab States in positive responses to Israeli concessions, such as opening telephone communications and airline connections. This makes the Palestinians nervous, so Saeb Erakat issued a statement that the Arab States should not "reward" Israel if it agrees to a settlement freeze (actually no new official settlements are being built, only expansions of existing settlements and of Jerusalem).
In return for his cooperation, Netanyahu asked Obama for support in increasing the pressure on Iran. However, Netanyahu's attempt to finesse Obama into an "Iran first" option did not work. Obama reiterated his policy of "extending a hand in peace" to Iran; he will wait until after the June elections and then attempt talks, and if that doesn't work "by the end of the year" then perhaps he might consider more sanctions. Meanwhile Iran races forward to make nuclear weapons to use on you know who. This kind of prevarication passes for policy in the liberal mind-set. It will do nothing to allay Israel's and Netanyahu's fears. To those who say that there is no such thing as a "military solution," I point to the end-game that has just taken place in Sri Lanka, not to mention the improved situation in Iraq.
Maybe both leaders will agree on a statement of Israeli Government intentions to resume peace negotiations with the PA as soon as possible, and neither will directly link Iran with the Palestine-Israel conflict or vice versa. Either way the diplomatic niceties will be covered, at least publicly.
posted by Jack Cohen at 11:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home