The writer was Pakistan’s ambassador to the EU from 2001-2004 and to the US in 1999
tariq.fatemi@tribune.com.pk
Not only has Secretary John Kerry dampened any expectation, the president, too, has reassured American Jewish leaders that he was not planning to deliver “a grand peace plan” but urge the sides to enter into a dialogue. He also confided that his primary objectives would be: (i) to reiterate Washington’s “unshakable support” for Israel; (ii) stand by Israel against all challenges in the Middle East; (3) send a clear message to Iran that all options are on the table; and (iv) find a just solution to the Palestinian issue.
What explains President Obama’s cautious approach? For one, the early unpleasant experience of dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the resultant conclusion that in the face of the prime minister’s intransigence and skill in manipulating the powerful pro-Israeli lobby in the US, there was little possibility of the White House taking any meaningful initiative on the peace process. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are stuck with a weak and increasingly isolated president on the West Bank and an elected — though unrecognised — leader in Gaza, with both at loggerheads and unable to present a united front.
There are, however, some reports to the effect that President Obama may ask the Israeli leadership for a detailed plan for withdrawal from the West Bank, to consider whether he can float plans to promote the establishment of a Palestinian State by 2014. But the current situation is tailor-made to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s advantage. With President Obama lacking Congressional support to apply pressure on the Israeli leader even on a temporary freeze of settlements, and the Europeans unwilling to go beyond mere diplomatic demarches, there is little likelihood of any meaningful initiative being taken for the resumption of the peace process.
Some observers see room for optimism in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s success in finally knitting together a coalition. But it embraces such disparate politicians as Yair Lapid — a moderate — and Naftali Bennett — an extreme right-winger, who has ruled out a Palestinian state — which means that Israel will have a weak and fragmented government unable to agree on any initiative, especially when there is little support in the country.
Moreover, Prime Minister Netanyahu is well versed in American politics. He has rightly claimed, both publicly and privately, that his strength is in the Capitol, not the White House. Consequently, he sees no reason to entertain any initiative, attaching preconditions to the resumption of peace talks, vowing to make no compromise over Israel’s claim “that united Jerusalem will remain its eternal and indivisible capital”. He has also refused to dismantle the illegal settlements while rejecting the Palestinian right of return and demanding that any Palestinian entity in the occupied territories be demilitarised and not have a border with Jordan. In other words, Prime Minister Netanyahu envisages a Bantustan, with municipal powers, not a sovereign state, as mandated by the UNSC resolutions.
With Palestinians disunited at home and neighbouring Arab states in a state of turmoil that has reduced even further their less-than-usual support and solidarity for the Palestinians, Prime Minister Netanyahu may well feel that the status quo is Israel’s best option. This allows him to continue with current policy, eventually making annexation of the West Bank a reality, taking Israel’s borders to the Jordan River. The Israelis, nevertheless, need to ponder the consequences of ruling over 2.5 million angry disillusioned Palestinians, living in an apartheid-like situation. What will it do to Israel’s claim of being a democracy or even of its Jewish identity, as forcefully brought out by six former Israeli security chiefs? The US, too, must appreciate that though its requirement for Middle Eastern oil is dwindling rapidly, a Middle East in a state of permanent ferment does not serve its purpose, or those of its allies.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 20th, 2013.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The author has written an excellent article, and outlined what the stakes are in the middle east and the world at large. Obama visit is a symolic one under pressure from Jewish lobbyists in the senate and the cogress, where the democrats are in minority, Naeem Khan has provided a sample, his main interests being the economy and defence against threat from North Korea, who is just about to do what other dare not in case of retaliation.
Rex Minor
@naeem khan Manhattan,Ks: You are confusing Jewish lobby with the Israeli lobby. Jews by and large voted for Barack Obama even though he most definitely did not see eye to eye with Israel on many things and made his stand clear. Nor has this supposedly all powerful Israeli lobby had any luck in preventing Chuck Hagel from getting confirmed as the Secretary of State though clearly Democrats did not have filibuster-proof majority.
A well-thought article. PML-N has made another good decision by inducting Mr Tariq Fatemi.
Kazmi is an advisor to PMLN and yet he very conveniently doesn't see the Badami Bagh incident under his nose. Good attempt to put issues at home under carpet.
@naeem khan Manhattan,Ks: The support you reference isn't even dependent on those lobbyists in many cases. Some actually just consider the word "ally" to mean something. Some simply support Israel because they're well aware of the Hamas charter's contents which contradicts victimization claims and claims of intent. Some go with common sense after asking themselves "Which side is better for us to support? Israel, who we have a productive relationship with in most cases or the people who's vocabulary consists of only Allahu Akbar when something negative happens to the US and its citizens and death to America when they wake up in the morning?" I could keep going but, that should be sufficient for the general idea.
@cautious: How could you be so wrong, I have lived in Kansas since July 1964 and has seen several Presidents come and go but the Jewish lobby is not only strong and kicking in Washington DC but all over the US, for example in Kansas, the Koch Brothers from Wichita Ks. are changing their strategy and financing the local politicians in order to control the local politics and in turn Topeka, the capitol of Ks. In US, the local politics are more important than political wheeling and dealing in DC.Now we have Christian fundamentalists jumping in the foray and supporting Israel because according to them Jesus is coming back to Israel and Jews are the chosen people by God and above all Jesus was a Jew. American Jewish lobby is so strong in US that majority of the congress can not and will not deviate from their wishes. I had a run in with Senator Brownback who is Governor of Ks now, when I asked him while he was a Senator about the plight of Palestinians and his answer to me was that " it was different kind of bucket of worms", and he would not touch that topic, of course he is thinking to run for Presidency.If you are not living in the US, then I would say that you have no idea how strong the Jewish people are financially and politically and their total population in the US is about 10million but look into the Senate and Congress and see their disproportionate representation there and compare it with the African American population.If any one criticize their heavy handedness then they are immediately tagged as anti-Semitic and may even run you off the town, it has happened in Manhattan,Ks.
Author hasn't a clue about how America works and has consistently overrated the Jewish lobby. Bibi wasn't bashful about his dislike for Obama during the last election and he was unable to garner any support from the American Jewish electorate who voted the Democratic ticket - that's a well known fact that the author goes out of his way to ignore because it doesn't support his bias. Obama has nothing to fear from the American Jewish lobby - if anyone in the Obama/Bibi relations is concerned about the American Jewish lobby it's Bibi.