Netanyahu snubs Obama’s pitch
By Max J. Castro
majcastro@gmail.com
Obama is nothing if not persistent, but does he have the audacity to show the Israelis that actions have real and not just symbolic consequences by conditioning diplomatic support and economic and military aid on Israel’s seriousness in regard to a peace plan?
It didn’t take long for Israel’s new Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to thumb his nose at the United States, Israel’s benefactor to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and dozens of UN Security Council vetoes since the 1948 foundation of the Jewish state.
Netanyahu announced Israel would go ahead with the construction of 20 apartments for Jewish settlers in Arab East Jerusalem contrary to the wishes of the Obama administration. Rhetoric aside, Netanyahu’s move once again shows that hardliners in Israel have a very clear policy: do everything in their power to make the creation of a viable Palestinian state impossible. Netanyahu says Jews have the right to build in an area annexed after the Six-Day War in 1967. In fact, construction and settlement on occupied land is illegal under international law. East Jerusalem is envisioned as the capital of the Palestinian state under various peace plans but Israeli hawks insist the city will remain undivided as Israel’s capital.
The Israeli experience is that they can ignore Washington’s wishes with impunity despite the utter dependence of the Jewish state on the United States. So far, the Obama administration has reacted with a mere slap on the wrist in the form of summoning the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Michael B. Oren, to the State Department.
Stopping settlements is the first step toward a peace plan; Netanyahu has served notice that he is not serious about making peace with the Palestinians and instead will rely on Israel’s overwhelming power and the virtually unconditional support of the American superpower.
Obama is nothing if not persistent, but does he have the audacity to show the Israelis that actions have real and not just symbolic consequences by conditioning diplomatic support and economic and military aid on Israel’s seriousness in regard to a peace plan?
The notion is almost unthinkable within the reality of American politics. On the other hand, a fair and lasting peace is unthinkable absent U.S. political will vis-à-vis Israel.
With a tremendous assistance from Palestinian radicals, Israel has been able to equate, in the minds of many, the legitimate Palestinian aspirations for a viable state with terrorism. But what would happen if Palestinians adopted the practices of radical non-violent protest and eschewed the armed struggle which is militarily unwinnable, counterproductive politically and immoral when it is directed at civilians? Although they kill many fewer than do the Israelis, the killing of innocent civilians is the only thing preventing the Palestinians from attaining the moral high ground.
