WASHINGTON - There is a famous episode in the classic comedy show, Fawlty Towers
in which the British hotelier played by John Cleese prepares for a party of
German guests with the invocation "Don't mention the war!"
Obama actually came to Cairo and pulled this off. Speaking on the eve of the
42nd anniversary of the Six-Day War in which Israel actually occupied the
Occupied Territories, he gave a long and considered oration which did not
mention the war that gave rise to the occupation and whose humiliation is still
seared in Egyptian memory.
It was that war that heralded the US's seemingly infinite
forbearance for Israeli actions, as proven by the heavy handed, and continuing,
attempts not to mention the Israeli attempt to sink the USS Liberty.
However, Obama's omission in no way detracts from the seriousness of his
commitment to a peace settlement and his speech suggests the beginning of the
end of that era of almost unqualified support for Israel. His speech [1], like
the rest of his Middle East policy, is full of the nuance that George W Bush
famously excised from his rhetoric. For the diehard pro-Israeli crowd, it is a
sort of reverse neutron bomb, which attacks the structure of Likud policy while
temporarily leaving its protagonists intact. But they should watch for fallout.
In his hallmark tangential way, he dealt with the war in Iraq in a way that
nobody back home could accuse of being unpatriotic. He carefully distinguished
it from Afghanistan as a "war of choice", and said that it had "reminded
America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to
resolve our problems whenever possible". He did not as his leftist critics
immediately complained, "apologize" or do penance. He merely said it would not
happen again, which is enough for most of us.
While many Muslims would welcome the declaration of peace with the Islamic
world, which he certainly took beyond pious platitudes, he and his audience are
well aware that the litmus test will be delivery of a peace settlement in the
Middle East. In fact, he does not even have to deliver - he merely has to show
that the US is indeed an honest broker and not just Israel's second in an
unequal dual with the Palestinians. That is a process that he has clearly begun
and his speech is part of it.
He tactfully and firmly states several areas of fundamental US disagreement
with Likud and even with Labor and Kadima, which have tended to disagree more
in rhetoric for public consumption than in practical policy. It covers Israeli
nukes, recognition of a Palestinian state solution, an end to settlements, and
by implication, opening the border to Gaza. It also hints at the possibility of
engagement with Hamas and a shared Jerusalem as "a secure and lasting home for
Jews and Christians and Muslims". The sound of silence is deafening for all
those who believe in an undivided, eternal capital of the Jewish state.
It should be noted that much of this is not groundbreaking in terms of
long-term US policy. It is rather that previous US administrations ignored what
Israel actually did in favor of accepting evasive assurances from its
politicians.
Thus, while he emphasizes the special relationship between the US and Israel he
gently puts the latter on a par with Iran as entitled to civilian nuclear
energy - "I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that
others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds
nuclear weapons ... Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear
power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. That commitment is at the core of the treaty.
And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all
countries in the region can share in this goal," is the operative paragraph,
which even if it does not mention Israel directly certainly echoes Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton's recent test-firing of her bombshell, the expectation
that the country join the NPT.
He emphasized the US commitment to a Palestinian state and gently reminded the
Evangelicals back home that "the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians -
have suffered in pursuit of a homeland ... They endure the daily humiliations -
large and small - that come with occupation."
Whereas the Israelis only accepted the obligations of the road map with a whole
list of exclusions that no other party has accepted, Obama reaffirmed that "the
obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear ...
Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be
denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the
legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates
previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for
these settlements to stop."
It is worth remembering that his speech, while directed explicitly at the
Muslim world, had "collateral" listeners. They include not just the Israeli
factions but also their supporters in the United States, particularly in
Congress where the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week secured
329 signatures of members of Congress, for a letter calling on the
administration to work "closely and privately" with Israel.
The Israeli government is clearly hurting, bewildered by the administration's
refusal to emulate its predecessors in overlooking clear breaches of previous
Israeli commitments. "Look what we say, not at what we do," has always been a
cardinal principle of Israeli diplomacy - and it has been failing. Almost as
close is the ability to get Israel's version of talks and meetings in the press
as the definitive version. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israeli
journalists this week that he had asked the US administration to cut back the
briefings in which it laid out its policy, in effect leaving Israel to spin the
results. Obama is unlikely to agree.
The protests from Israeli right-wingers about US interference in internal
Israeli politics should raise some smiles from all sides in Washington, not
least since they are paralleled by calls from other colleagues in the Knesset
(parliament) for the lobby to get to work on Obama quickly.
But Obama's laidback rhetoric is a trap. It successfully entices Israeli
hardliners to come out explicitly with their renunciation of the Road Map and
the whole consensus, in a sense exposing themselves to American politicians who
might otherwise be pressured into wrecking moves.
But the combination of Obama's popularity, not least with American Jewish
voters, and the latter's exasperation with the neo-conservative/Likud alliance
gives the White House some serious leverage to fight off such attempts to
defang the new policy. However, the White House clearly knows what to expect,
which is one reason for the nuance: firmly stating longstanding US official
policy and restating Israeli promises while, so far eschewing overt
condemnation and threats.
Note
1. For the full text of Obama's speech, click
here.
Ian Williams is the author of Deserter: Bush's War on Military
Families, Veterans and His Past, Nation Books, New York.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
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
