'Throw a bone & snatch it back!'

"... Obama’s weak-kneed approach has alarmed some European leaders. They now have to consider whether it is time for Europe, in defence of its own security interests, to break ranks with Washington and adopt a tougher stance towards Israel. One can only wonder what David Cameron, Britain’s Prime Minister, said to Barack Obama on this subject when the latter visited the UK this week.

In his speech, Obama threw a bone to the Palestinians by saying that the borders between Israel and Palestine ‘”should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” But when Netanyahu made furious objection, he snatched the bone back. Addressing AIPAC, the pro-Israeli lobby, last Sunday, Obama sought to correct what he complained was a wrong interpretation of his words....

It is now clear to most independent observers that Netanyahu wants land, not peace. He and like-minded Greater Israel ideologues will not yield to persuasion. Only serious pressure -- even a threat of sanctions -- might yield results. Over 500,000 Israeli settlers already live beyond the 1967 borders, and settlement construction in the Occupied Territories is proceeding apace. On the very eve of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, Israel defiantly announced the construction of 1,500 new homes for Jewish settlers in Arab East Jerusalem.

But, as he campaigns for re-election next year, Obama has evidently decided that he cannot expend hard-won political capital on the unpopular cause of Palestine. The Congress is overwhelmingly pro-Israeli, AIPAC and The Washington Institute, its sister organisation, are powerful pressure groups, and American Jews are major contributors to Democratic Party campaign funds.

Cairo was the only Arab capital where Obama’s speech attracted some favourable comment because of his offer to Egypt of $1bn in debt relief and an additional $1bn in loan guarantees. But as Saudi Arabia’s English-language Arab News commented acidly on 20 May: “If Obama wants our trust and friendship, then he must work on the one area where he has failed so disgracefully to deliver -- Palestine... We do not want American bribes. He can keep his cash. The US economy needs it more than we do.”

Consider what Obama actually said in his 19 May speech. To Israel, he offered the following important commitments:

• “No peace can be imposed,” he said. This is familiar short-hand for saying that Israel will face no U.S. pressure to allow the emergence of a Palestinian state.

• “Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations won’t create an independent state.... efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.” With these words he announced his opposition to the Palestinians’ plan to seek recognition for their sovereign state at next September’s meeting of the UN General Assembly. By saying that the United States would “stand against attempts to single [Israel] out for criticism in international forums” he indicated that the U.S. would continue to use its veto in Israel’s favour -- as it did astonishingly last February, when it vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning settlement expansion, the very policy the U.S. had itself favoured until that moment!

• In his speech to AIPAC, Obama described the Fatah-Hamas agreement as “an enormous obstacle to peace.” Adopting Israel’s objections as his own, he said that “No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organisation sworn to its destruction.” Needless to say, he made no mention of the fact that Israel had tried to destroy Hamas when it invaded Gaza in 2008-9, leaving 1,400 Palestinians dead.

• Obama repeated the mantra that “our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable.” To AIPAC, he repeated the U.S. commitment to guarantee Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME) -- that is to say its ability to confront and defeat any Arab threat. He made no mention of security for the Palestinians or indeed for Lebanon, which has suffered repeated Israeli aggressions and invasions. Any future Palestinian state, he said, should be “non-militarized.” Clearly, in Obama’s vision, none of Israel’s neighbours has the right to defend itself.

• On the subject of Iran, Obama reaffirmed America’s opposition to Iran’s “illicit nuclear program and its sponsorship of terror” -- remarks straight out of Israel’s propaganda book.

Obama listed what he described as America’s “core interests” in the Middle East as follows: “Countering terrorism.” (Together with its backing for Israel, America’s brutal interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen are the main causes of terrorism.) “Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.”... maintaining Israel’s regional monopoly of nuclear weapons.... safe-guarding the security of the region.” (Arabs and Iranians will ask who, apart from Israel, might threaten the security of the region.) “Standing up for Israel’s security.”..."