Netanyahu's "yes we can" moment
Rime Allaf - Oct 2009
Al Jazeera

Big speeches with grand accompanying events, marking an umpteenth rekindling of the strangest and longest peace process, have been Middle East fixtures for decades, as have the inevitable follow-up periods of analysis and projections. No matter where the respective leaders in question stood on the scale of left to right, or to which party they belonged, little new ever emerged - it was a vicious cycle of déjà vu.

Not this time, however. If only to recall President Barack Obama’s motto of change, and his rallying cry of “yes we can,” credit must be given where credit is due, as Obama has accomplished what no other US president before him managed to do. Even though he understood that Israel’s adamant refusal to comply with his settlement freeze demand amounted to a political slap in the face, Obama still hosted a meeting between the Israeli Prime Minister and the President of the Palestinian Authority, to announce in all seriousness that “permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon.”

For many observers, it beggars belief that the most powerful country in the world could be scorned in this manner by a much smaller one, which itself depends on American political patronage and financial aid to defy dozens of Security Council resolutions and the will of the vast majority of the real international community. So early in his mandate, having been publicly humiliated by Israel, President Obama backtracked and allowed its arrogance to reach new highs; having set a precedent, and seemingly gotten away with it, it is difficult to imagine what or who exactly will pressure – let alone force – Israel on any issue.

Indeed, Israel can now claim that there is change under Obama, as it now can confidently say “yes we can” as undiplomatically and defiantly as it wishes.

It may have been unrealistic to expect the American president to be more royal than the king, when the man supposedly defending Palestinian interests (albeit without a legitimate mandate) has ignored Israel’s transgressions. If Mahmoud Abbas can overlook them and meet with Netanyahu, while Gaza continues to starve under siege, why shouldn’t Obama?

Unfortunately, the entire fiasco had been predictable, following the complete failure of the president’s special envoy, George Mitchell, to have achieved anything during several months of selective diplomacy. For all the contrived hype surrounding President Obama’s hesitant engagement, the so-called high stakes were nothing more than a partial freeze of Israeli settlements for a limited period – hardly ground-breaking measures.

This unprecedented psychological victory, relieving Netanyahu of having to pretend he would abide by US wishes, has turned the Israeli prime minister’s audacity into insolence. In fact, Israel seems to have become so accustomed to getting its own way that Netanyahu’s indignation may have not even been feigned as he admonished the United Nations for daring to protest Israel’s actions in Gaza.

It is disturbing to recall that this prime minister, whose party was elected because the latest Gaza war mongers weren’t considered brutal enough by Israeli voters, need not even cater to a silent minority seeking a different path from the one taken by the militaristic and increasingly aggressive establishment. While 94% of Israelis supported the government’s attack on Gaza in January this year, they clearly didn’t feel that enough had been done, and Netanyahu’s defiance of US, and in particular of President Obama, is not going to be unpopular.

Avigdor Lieberman’s theatricals may have captured the media’s attention, but the foreign minister, who many consider to be openly racist and xenophobic, is small fry compared to the real loose bull in Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu. In only a few days, he not only ensured Obama’s retraction and warned the world and the UN Human Rights Committee about criticizing Israel, but he also turned the attention away from Gaza and on to Iran.

These developments augur very grim prospects for the future of the region, and the time may have come to drop the pretense and not bother sending Mitchell on yet another pointless trip. If the Obama administration was serious about its involvement, it would find the will, and the way, to make Israel get out of the land it illegally occupied and force it to recognize Palestine’s right to exist. The more Israel’s intransigence grows, in fact, the more imperative it will become to impose a solution.

For the time being, however, the US doesn’t seem to have reached this conclusion and continues to pander to Israeli demands at the expense of the Arab world, and of Palestinians. The White House and the State Department, disappointingly, have relaunched their drive for “normalization” and increased the pressure on Arabs to make “tangible and credible goodwill gestures” toward Israel. Instead of pressuring those they should, they are pushing those they can. If Mitchell goes back to the Middle East, it is hard to imagine he would have any mission other than putting the onus, once again, on the victims; forcing the Arabs to “normalize” with Israel, in return for nothing, may buy the US and Israel time, but it will never bring peace.

Rime Allaf is an international consultant and an Associate Fellow at London’s Chatham House. She blogs at www.rimeallaf.com/mosaics/index.php[/i/