RSS Feeds
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,    but because of the people who don't do anything about it    
Occupation magazine - Commentary

Home page  back Print  Send To friend

Two speeches: Obama in conflict with Netanyahu?
By: Shmuel Amir
Hagada Hasmalit
17 June 2009

Original Hebrew: http://www.hagada.org.il/hagada/html/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6798

Translated from Hebrew by George Malent

Netanyahu’s speech [of 14 June 2009] was perceived in Israel and the world as a reply to Obama’s speech in Cairo, and as such it has rightly provoked a great deal of interest.

The content of the speech itself was typical and of the kind that have been given by previous prime ministers in one way or another. The purpose of all those speeches has always been to explain to the public in Israel and the world that it is impossible to stop the Occupation, not – God forbid – because Israel desires Occupation and settlements, but because of Palestinian refusal. For its part, Israel wants to get out of the Occupied Territories, but the perfidious Palestinians are making it impossible for Israel to do that. Accordingly Ehud Barak said that at Camp David he wanted to return nearly everything to the Palestinians but he had no partner. True, we too have set some conditions for peace and for ending the Occupation, but those demands are the minimum needed to preserve the security of our State – “security” which has always required the annexation of Palestinian lands.

And thus it was again in Netanyahu’s speech, when he said “courageously and honestly” (“he said it himself” as they say in Yiddish), that he was offering the Palestinians a Palestinian state. True, it has to be demilitarized – beside a neighbour armed from head to toe – and the Palestinians must declare that they have joined the Zionist Organization and recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Jerusalem will remain “undivided”, and we will not talk with Hamas (which is the legitimate government). Netanyahu did not talk about the 1967 borders, or about the right of return, he ignored also the Arab League peace proposal. And the word “occupation” did not pass his lips; he speaks only of the “presence” of our forces.

Netanyahu rejected Obama’s public appeal to stop construction in the settlements in a way that was almost rude: “We have to continue to provide for normal needs in the settlements.”

There is no reason at all to discuss that proposal, which is lacking in any seriousness and certainly in any “courage and honesty”. The Arab and Palestinian responses, emphatically rejecting the “generous offers” (and they were immediately characterized by Israeli spokesmen as refusing to talk about peace) were also expected.

A little less expected were the positive responses of some in the Israeli peace camp who saw in the speech a window, even if a small one, to a better future.

But much more important was the response of the main addressee of Netanyahu’s speech: President Barack Obama. Indeed he did not even bother to listen to the speech, preferring to play golf instead; but his first response, according to media reports at least, was that Netanyahu’s speech was “a step in the right direction”.

Obama’s position on Netanyahu was represented in the Israeli media as well as the Palestinian media as tough.

Obama was described in both the Israeli and Palestinian media as taking a tough line with Netanyahu – after all, did not Obama “himself say” that he would pursue peace “aggressively”? And an Israeli commentator wrote that Netanyahu in his speech “had to loosen the American noose”. [Yossi Verter, Haaretz, 15 June 2009, “Netanyahu speech aimed solely for Obama’s ears” http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093049.html

Has in fact a sharp conflict been created between Israel and the US after Netanyahu’s speech, which according to Saeb Erakat “was a slap in the fact to Obama”? To judge by Obama’s initial reaction, it not does it look like any conflict is threatening Israeli-US relations. But that raises several questions, such as: do Netanyahu and his entourage know something about Israel’s relationship with the USA that is concealed from the eyes of the public?

Perhaps the constant American emphasis on the fact that the US-Israel relationship is “unshakable” and that the USA will “ensure Israel’s security” has greater importance than we have imagined? Could it be that we have misinterpreted Obama’s speech in Cairo, and as a result the Left has unjustified illusions, whereas the extreme Right responded with exaggerated fears?

Was the purpose of the speech to appease those whom the Americans refer to as “the moderate Arab states”, and to provide them with ammunition against the extremist Arabs through the use of stronger language towards Israel? Perhaps the objective of the speech was not at all to bring peace closer and to end the Occupation at all?

Take, for example, the most ringing sentence in Obama’s speech: “It is time for these settlements to stop.” That sentence was received in the world as indicating a sharp turnaround in policy towards Israel. But a second and more focussed look raises the question of why Obama chose to say that the settlements should “stop” and not “be dismantled” or “removed”? Is this not somewhat less than a demand that the Occupation itself come to an end? Is this not an indirect endorsement of the Occupation, by hinting that it would be too much for Obama to insist that the Occupation itself come to an end, and so he settled for saying that the settlements must “stop”? Does not this imply recognition of the “settlement blocs”, which of course are slated for annexation in every Israeli “peace plan”? As we learn from Washington, even Netanyahu’s emphatic rejection of the demand to stop the settlements is already subject to “discussion”.

In fact there is more than a little hypocrisy and pretense in the emphatic demand that Israel stop the settlements. One gets the impression from Obama’s speech that Israel alone is responsible for the establishment of settlements in general. But is it conceivable that the President of the USA does not know full well that no Israeli government could erect even one settlement without the agreement of the USA (and for our purposes it makes no difference if it is explicit or a “wink”)?

If Obama had spoken honestly, therefore, he would have said, “We will immediately cease our support for the building of the settlements. We, who permitted that construction, in partnership with the Israelis, have violated international law by doing so. We, who have evaded all discussion of the matter, provided cover for Israel by vetoing any condemnation of Israel at the United Nations Security Council.”

If Obama expressed himself that way, he would be speaking the truth and putting his cards on the table. But instead he chose to strike the pose of a prophet preaching righteousness as he also did in other parts of his speech in which American political motivations were well concealed.

Thus for example, he said in his speech that the USA would not impose peace on the two sides and that they themselves had to decide on that. Does Obama not know that that is precisely Israel’s policy, which Netanyahu emphasized very well in his speech, demanding “direct negotiations” with the Palestinians, knowing full well that that way Israel can continue to subjugate the Palestinians forever?

In this context it is also important to take note of the fact that at no point in his speech did Obama propose a plan for peace or ending the Occupation. He did not mention the 1967 borders, the refugee problem, Jerusalem as the capital of the two peoples or Palestinian unity. He thereby made it easier for Netanyahu to deal with those issues as he wants.

Particularly revolting was the section in which Obama talked about the violence that the Palestinians (and not the Israelis, God forbid!) must stop. This after “Operation Cast Lead”, which took place after his election to the Presidency and to which he gave his consent with his silence.

And more generally – talk about refraining from violence coming from a man who presides over the world’s biggest military force, that has 700 bases all over the world; a President who has already managed to increase the American military budget (!); to postpone the withdrawal from Iraq and to escalate the involvement in Afghanistan, is strange to say the least. And that is without even mentioning the victims in Iraq and the ongoing bloodshed there (estimates of the tally of dead and wounded range from half a million to a million and a half).

And despite all that, Obama preaches for a cessation of violence. Have we seen hypocrisy reach such lofty heights before?

Obama’s speech bespeaks the weakening of the USA’s position in the world, especially among the Arab and Muslim states. Gone is the era when gunships were dispatched to deal with spots of resistance against America. Even big invasions like those of Iraq and Afghanistan have become harder to execute. It has also become harder to implement covert actions like the political assassinations and internal coups that were implemented against Allende in Chile, Castro in Cuba and Mossadegh in Iran.

The weakening of the United States is a result both of the loosening of its grip on the world economy and on the change in relations of power in the world – the strengthening of China and Russia’s new assertiveness. The Muslim nationalist movement must be counted among the factors that are weakening American hegemony. The Arab and Muslim nationalist movements are among the biggest enemies of American imperial hegemony. Even though those movements were weakened to a great extent when they went from being secular-nationalist to being religious-nationalist, they continue to be a large and hostile force against the USA.

The USA is not afraid of the Iranian nuclear bomb, but of Iran’s influence over the various anti-American nationalist movements. Obama knows that the “moderate” Arab governments not do not enjoy the support of their peoples, and they are vulnerable to that influence.

The experts in the White House understood very well that it was necessary to distance themselves from the Bush legacy; that it was necessary to change if not the policies, then at least the style; that it was necessary to implement certain changes, even at the expense of Israel. Obama is prepared to make certain cosmetic changes. But he would not dream of fundamentally changing the “unshakeable” relationship. In my estimation, the most that he will do is dismantle some settlement outposts and stop the spread of the settlements to some extent. That maximum, wrapped up in his special style, will be presented by Obama as a gift to the “moderate” Arab states, in order to relieve the pressure that the Arab nationalist movements are applying on them.

Obama is the best man for that. In that regard he may be compared to Churchill, who said that he did not rise to power in order to liquidate the British Empire. Obama too does not want to liquidate the American empire, but to conserve it. And let there be no mistake about it: he remains the head of American imperialism.

Thus at the end of the day, Obama’s and Netanyahu’s speeches were a show of “as if”. They both know which one of them is the decider. Obama could have dispensed with the speech and just announced to the Israeli government that if Israel does not withdraw from all the Territories he will take certain measures. But Obama does not intend to do that, because Israel plays an important role in the USA’s strategic campaign in the Middle East. The margin for bargaining between Israel and the USA is a very small one. So far it looks like Netanyahu – perhaps even better than his adversaries – is well aware of its dimensions.

And to those among us who hung their hopes for peace on Obama and the United States I say with sorrow: the USA is the problem, not the solution.

gm
Links to the latest articles in this section

Of Genes and Ministers
Who`s suppressing opposition rallies in Ramallah?
US Condemns Murder of Israelis -- But Never of Palestinians