Netanyahu can't bear to say 'two-state' By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - While reaffirming the "special relationship" between their two
countries, United States President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu appeared unable to bridge major differences in their
approaches to Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts following their White
House meeting here on Monday.
While Obama said he may be prepared to impose additional sanctions against Iran
early next year if diplomatic efforts to persuade it to curb its nuclear
program failed to make progress, he refused to set what he called "an arbitrary
deadline". Israeli officials had pressed Washington for an early October
deadline.
And while Obama repeatedly stressed the importance of a two-state solution to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Netanyahu never
uttered the phrase or alluded to the possibility of a Palestinian state during
a 30-minute press appearance with the US president after their meeting in the
Oval Office.
"My view is less one of terminology than substance," he said, adding a number
of pre-conditions for any final settlement.
"If ... the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, if they fight
terror, they educate their children for peace and for a better future, then I
think we can come to a substantive solution that allows the two peoples to live
side by side in security and peace," he said, stressing that he was nonetheless
eager "to resume negotiations [with the Palestinians] as rapidly as possible
... "
Netanyahu also declined to respond to explicit calls by Obama to both stop
Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Territories and to address the
humanitarian situation in Gaza, which has been subject to strict blockade by
the Israeli authorities and Egypt that has prevented any reconstruction of the
territory devastated by Israel's three-week military campaign in late December
and January.
"Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well. And I shared
with the prime minister the fact that under the 'road map', under Annapolis,
there is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements;
that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward," Obama
said during the press appearance.
"The fact is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can't even get
clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is
impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that
is not going to be a recipe for Israel's long-term security or a constructive
peace track to move forward," he noted, adding that Washington intended to
become a "strong partner" in any peace process.
Monday's talks, which Obama called "extraordinarily productive", were perhaps
the most widely anticipated of any he has held with a foreign leader since his
inauguration nearly four months ago. Unlike George W Bush, Obama has repeatedly
insisted he will make a two-state solution a top priority of his foreign policy
and that he sees such a settlement as critical to the larger goal of
stabilizing the Greater Middle East, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, and
defeating al-Qaeda and like-minded groups.
That view was already given voice last week by Jordan's King Abdullah, the
first regional leader to visit Obama at the White House, and will no doubt be
bolstered by the visits here next week of the beleaguered Palestinian Authority
president, Mahmoud Abbas, who has insisted that Netanyahu commit himself to a
two-state solution, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Obama's determination to conclude a two-state settlement, however, clearly
clashes with the agenda of Netanyahu's new right-wing government, which is not
only publicly opposed to a two-state solution but whose top priority is to
prevent Iran "by military means, if necessary" from obtaining nuclear weapons,
a capability which, according to some senior Israeli intelligence officials, it
may acquire as soon as the end of this year.
Indeed, Netanyahu and his allies among US neo-conservatives and other elements
of the so-called "Israel Lobby" here have argued that Israel cannot be expected
to advance the peace process when it faces the "existential" threat posed by a
nuclear Iran, particularly given Tehran's support for Hamas, which controls
Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Until that threat is addressed, they insist,
little or no progress can be achieved on the Palestinian front.
But Obama explicitly rejected that thesis on Monday. While recognizing
"Israel's legitimate concerns" about Iran's nuclear ambitions, he said, "If
there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I
personally believe it actually runs the other way."
"To the extent that we can make peace ... between the Palestinians and the
Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international
community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat," he said.
The appearance of the two leaders before reporters followed a lengthy private
meeting which reportedly lasted a full hour longer than anticipated, an
indication, according to retired US ambassador to Israel Samuel Lewis, that
they failed to agree to on key issues. In addition, the two sides also failed
to issue a joint statement summarizing the talks, another indication of
disagreement, according to Lewis.
On Iran, Obama offered more details about US diplomatic strategy than he had
before. He suggested that Washington was holding off on engaging Tehran in
earnest until after its elections next month.
After elections are completed, he said, "We are hopeful that ... there is going
to be a serious process of engagement, first with the P5 Plus 1[the five
permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany] process, which is
already in place; potentially through additional direct talks between the
United States and Iran."
"We should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they
are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making
progress and that there's a good-faith effort to resolve differences," he went
on. "That doesn't mean every issue would be resolved by that point," he
stressed.
At the same time, he stressed that the dangers posed by Iran's acquisition of
nuclear weapons was such that, without imposing an "artificial deadline ...
we're not going to have talks forever. We're not going to create a situation in
which the talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with
developing and deploying a nuclear weapon."
He suggested that Washington would proceed to seek international support for
tougher sanctions against Iran but did not mention possible military action, as
Netanyahu no doubt had hoped.
"I assured the prime minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps,
including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran
understand that we are serious," Obama said.
In his own remarks, Netanyahu appeared to try to broaden this formulation to
include possible military action, saying, "I very much appreciate, Mr
President, your firm commitment to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear
military capability, and also your statement that you're leaving all options on
the table."
Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
With additional reporting by Ali Gharib.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
