A plan gone awry

Decisions by Netanyahu, to back Romney over Obama and to attack Gaza have led some Israelis to question his judgments.


Tariq Fatemi November 27, 2012
A plan gone awry

The American-educated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long prided himself on being a better judge of American politics than his predecessors. He has also succeeded in establishing close ties with many prominent political figures, particularly the “neo-cons”, during his diplomatic assignments in Washington and New York. But two recent events have led some Israelis to question his judgments.

The first was his open disdain for President Barack Obama, which graduated into a not-too-subtle endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney. This led Aaron Miller, a veteran Middle East negotiator, to describe the Netanyahu-Obama relationship as “the most dysfunctional I have ever seen”. Nor did it endear Netanyahu to his admirers in the US or his supporters back home, for as pointed out by Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, “Bibi backed the wrong horse” and after his latest adventure, “there has been a reversal of balance between Bibi and Obama”.

Given his commando instincts, Netanyahu’s second error was to opt immediately after Obama’s victory for a pre-emptive strike, ostensibly to refurbish his hawkish credentials, to silence critics at home and ensure victory in the January elections and, thereafter, stymie any White House peace initiative. This could also put to test President Mohamed Morsi’s credentials as a “reliable” peace partner. Why else kill Al Jabari, the Hamas military leader, who was instrumental in agreeing to a truce, if not but as a move to serve Netanyahu’s domestic and foreign policy goals?

The past weeks have, however, proven the truth of the ancient adage that the best laid plans are subject to uncertainties. For one, Morsi demonstrated unexpected skill and resolve, defying popular sentiments to engage in forceful negotiations with Israel, becoming the main interlocutor between Hamas and Israel, while establishing himself as a credible partner with the US, thereby trashing reservations about him in US Congress and the media. In the process, Morsi earned the Obama Administration’s public appreciation, prompting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to observe that Egypt was “assuming responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone of regional stability and peace”. Netanyahu, too, expressed his “appreciation for the efforts of Egypt”. After all, Egypt’s enhanced role would serve to reduce Iran’s influence in the region. And while doing all this, the Egyptian president reinforced his ties with the Hamas, proving to be an effective friend, which led Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader, to declare: “May God keep him in the presidency”. (It is, however, another matter that soon thereafter, Morsi went for a power grab that has engulfed him in a serious domestic crisis).

Secretary Clinton is savouring what may well be the last round of applause she is likely to receive for her diplomatic skills. President Obama would also be enjoying the sight of his detractor shooting himself in the foot. He has, however, continued to strike the traditionally pro-Israel stance, steadfast in support for Israel’s right to “defend” itself, while not urging “restrain” in its bombing campaign against civilian targets. Incidentally, it was Obama who had approved funds for the Iron Dome missile defence system, which reportedly intercepted 90 per cent of the Hamas-launched missiles.

Does this mean that President Obama has buttressed his credentials with Israel and its supporters in the US to a degree that would enable him to think of the larger agenda for the region? Surely, he is wise enough to recognise that the region has gone through a historic transformation and Israel’s ephemeral victories will not bring peace to this long-tormented land, unless the issue of Palestinian independence is resolved. The fragile ceasefire is only a brief pause that needs to be seized to revive the dormant peace process. Admittedly, the Arab-Israeli dispute is not amenable to easy or pain-free resolution, but if history is any guide, if anyone can venture into these choppy waters, it is only an American president, in his second term.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 28th, 2012.

COMMENTS (9)

ajbheatshields | 11 years ago | Reply Silence is golden
Genius | 11 years ago | Reply

Palestine? I try very hard to look at the facts as these really are and try not to talk the language of those who are well known to be economical with truth.Those who are economical with truth will try and do try very hard to make us believe that Jesus was a wicked man. The very same people will try to make us believe that their 500 year old "Campaign of terror" in many parts of the world starting from Central America is a "War on terror". I alongwith the many who look at facts as these are, am not going to accept those "Lies" coming from well known habitual liars. My information, it may not be well updated, is that the Arabs live in Arabia. Nowhere else. Looking at the history of this Asian land belonging to no one, other than the local Asian people i.e. the Palestinians, is that these people have been living on this land since thousands of years and certainly, absolutely certainly, are the descendents of the children of Israhyeel. Who are the Israelis then? Was Pontius Pilate an Israeli? Those Romans were at least honest about their religion. They did not hide the facts that they practised the Roman religion i.e. stealing lands, stealing peoples' hard earned wealth, taking non Romans slaves. They were, eventually, thrown out of this land by the local Asian people after enduring their torturous Roman rule for nearly 200 years. Then came to this Asian peoples' land, once again, the children of the Romans about 1000 years ago. Their deeds were exactly as that of their Godless Roman forefathers. Yet they called themselves Christians. Since they were found to be in practise of crucifying the holy Commandments Lord Creator handed down to Moses, could they be in the following of Jesus? Same goes for the present day European invaders and colonisers of this land. They are, as their forefathers were, thieves and murderers. They came to steal Palestinian peoples' lands as did their forefathers twice before. So could thieves and murderers who are seen to be crucifying the holy Commandments Lord Creator handed down to Moses, be Jews? Their every day deeds show that they do not abide by the holy Commandments Moses received. Their deeds show that they do not uphold the sanctity of the holy Torah. True? Do we not hear about it all happening almost every day? So how could these people practising the Roman religion be Jews? The true Jews, as far I know, indeed, are those who uphld the sanctity of the holy Torah. They are the Torah Jews. They do not believe in or practise the Roman religion of stealing other peoples' lands or belongings and committing murders. Their religion does not sanction such criminal, inhuman and brutal acts. Every time the Iranian President,Ahmednejaad visits New York these Jews, true Jews hold a very cordial reception in his honour and get along very well. So would every true Jew, true Christian and true Muslim. Now let me ask our learned author as to what credentials those European thieves and murderers have to justify them being called Jews and Israeli? The true children of Israhyeel are indeed the Palestinians. Should one not expect Truth being always be told by those who recite the Kalimah of allegience to Lord Creator night and noon? Should the believers also talk the language of the habitual liars?

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ