Poor Barack!

The twisted equation between US and Israel, in which the smaller partner sets the terms of engagement

That the US has been a resolute friend and a committed ally of Israel ever since its creation is a fact. But what is less known is their very unusual relationship, in which it is the smaller partner that sets the terms of engagement, demanding favours while refusing to reciprocate with its own affection.

Ever since it was pressured by the Eisenhower administration in 1956 to withdraw its forces from Egypt, Israel has viewed US presidents and, more importantly, the US State Department, as unavoidable irritants that needed to be humoured, preferring instead to build indissoluble ties with Congress. The result is an unshakeable hold on virtually all members, with the few who refuse to tow the line being made to pay a heavy price, as documented by two eminent scholars, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, in their monumental work: The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy.

Nevertheless, when Barack Obama made known his determination to take on the Palestinian issue head on, one could not but admire him, though it appeared more an act of folly than of courage. Events have proven correct this apprehension. Early in his term, he was horrified at the humiliation heaped on his vice-president when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected their pleas to even a cosmetic 90-day freeze on new settlements to permit negotiations to begin. Last month, his special envoy for the Middle East, the respected and skilled Senator Mitchell, quit, frustrated at the failure to move the peace process, even on procedural matters.

Since then, much water has flowed down the Nile. A remarkable transformation has taken hold of the region, sweeping away long-entrenched dictators, while divinely ordained monarchs shiver in their palaces, sensing the approaching tremors. Though Obama was slow to react to these seismic changes, clinging on to despots long after they had lost all utility, he rightly discerned the need for an immediate resurrection of the peace process, not as a favour to the Palestinians, but to protect US interests. The subtlety of this approach was, however, lost on Netanyahu, so assured is he of Congressional support.

To stir things just a little, Obama delivered a major speech late last month, in which he attempted a delicate dance between the conflicting demands of the two antagonists. However, in trying to please both, he ended up pleasing neither. While his support for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, with some land swaps, encouraged some Palestinians, it set the cat among the pigeons as far as the Israelis were concerned. A fuming Netanyahu warned Obama during their White House meeting that he would never accept the 1967 borders as they were “indefensible” and not reflective of ground realities. He also rejected any negotiations with a Palestinian authority, inclusive of Hamas.

Their frosty White House meeting, in front of the press corps, may have been a novel event for Pakistanis, accustomed as they are to the kowtowing of their leaders to foreign powers, but it was reflective of the twisted equation between the US and Israel. More disgrace was to follow a few days later when Obama tried to appeal to America’s most powerful lobby, the well-known American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), but in opting for expediency over consistency, he confirmed the paralysis that seizes US politicians when confronted by Israel’s supporters. Seeking to calm his audience, he clarified that all he had said was for the borders to be negotiated by the parties themselves, which meant between the occupation power and the occupied people! When even this failed to satisfy the increasingly sullen AIPAC members, Obama pleaded with them to note that many of his closest advisers were Jews! Seeing the US president grovel before this powerful lobby, one could not help but pity this man. Even Israeli parliamentarian Danny Danon was constrained to lament Obama’s “zigzagging in accordance with whatever position will give him more votes, while justifying his Noble Peace Prize”.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 8^th, 2011.