The big white elephant in US-Israeli ties

[IndianaGreen]

The big white elephant in US-Israeli ties

By Marwan Bishara in Imperium on March 15th, 2010

Netanyahu's appeasers refuse to recognise the big elephant in the room: without changing the makeup of the Israeli government, there will be no movement on the peace process.

That does not mean such movement could or would lead to a successful conclusion. Alas, Israelis and Palestinians have been processing peace under US auspices for two decades now, to no avail.

I remember very well back in 1991 when I was in Madrid for the launching of the international peace conference on the Middle East how Netanyahu, then the deputy foreign minister, defended the Shamir government's hard line positions on the negotiations.

Netanyahu has since moved up to become a second-term prime minister, but his skill at spinning political issues remains intact.

Today, the US government faces a similar crisis with Netanyahu to that faced by the senior George Bush when Yitzhak Shamir refused to freeze settlements.

Except that in 1991, the US had just come out victorious from the Cold War, while today it is at war in the greater Middle East.

Then, the Bush/Baker administration withheld loan guarantees from Israel and threatened further economic sanctions, all of which arguably led to Shamir's loss to Yitzhak Rabin in the 1992 elections.

So what would the Obama administration do if Israel did not change its government coalition, froze all settlement activity, and got seriously involved in the peace process?

For Netanyahu the answer is clear: "Israel and the US have mutual interests but we will act according to the vital interests of the State of Israel".

Would, or could, the Obama administration make the same claim?

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/imperium/2010/03/15/big-white-elephant-us-israeli-ties

[Newsjock]

1. Oh, I thought this was going to be an article about Joe Lieberman

:sarcasm:

[BunkerHill24]

2. Marwan Bishara is a good analyst and great addition to aljazeera

Thanks for the article. K&R

[bemildred]

3. Expecting "movement" on a stalling tactic seems contradictory. nt

[kayecy]

4. Why not?....the US has been doing it for years............

"Israel and the US have mutual interests but we will act according to the vital interests of the State of Israel".

Would, or could, the Obama administration make the same claim?

Could Obama claim that "...we will act according to the vital interests of the State of Israel"...Why not?..the US has been doing it for years.