Daily Times

President Barack Obama visited Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories and Jordan from March 20 to 23. This was his first visit abroad after being sworn in as second term president. The objectives of this visit were unclear. The media in the US had stories of sour relations between President Obama and the Israeli Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu. During the election campaign President Obama was criticised by his opponents for not visiting Israel during his first term. PM Netanyahu visited the White House several times but reportedly developed serious disagreements with President Obama on the peace process and on the Iranian nuclear threat. In one of the summits in Europe in 2011, former French president Nicholas Sarkozy characterised Netanyahu as a liar. In response President Obama consoled Sarkozy that he had to deal with him on a regular basis. During the election campaign, Netanyahu bluntly praised the Republican challenger Mitt Romney, which drew criticism even in Israel. The crux of the matter is that relations between the US president and Israeli PM left much to be desired. Given this unpleasant relationship, Obama decided to visit Israel to mend fences with Netanyahu. Since he would be in the region, Palestine and Jordan were included in the itinerary.

President Obama made several observations during this visit. He said the US is proud of its friendship with Israel. He went on to say, “Those who adhere to the ideology of rejecting Israel’s right to exist might as well reject the earth beneath them and the sky above…So long as there is a United States of America, you are not alone.” In Ramallah, Obama mentioned that although continued Israeli settlement activity is an obstacle to the two-state solution he favours, it should not prevent the Palestinians from returning to the negotiating table. He added, “It’s important for us to work through this process, even if there are irritants on both sides. If the expectation is that we can only have direct negotiations when everything is settled ahead of time, then there’s no point for negotiations.” Obama reiterated that he does not consider building on land that Palestinians view as their future state “to be constructive, to be appropriate, to be something that can advance the cause of peace.” Obama called on Israelis to respect the Palestinians’ right to a state. “Look at the world through their eyes,” he said of young Palestinians, “It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of his own.” Obama came closer to Netanyahu in acknowledging that Iran is only one year away from acquiring nuclear capability.

A significant section of Americans now believe that unconditional diplomatic and military support from the US has made Israel arrogant, belligerent and least respectful to international law. Israel has defied a series of UN resolutions and acted unilaterally in dealing with the Palestinians. It signed peace agreements with the Palestinian Authority but found excuses to shred the treaties. Israel has grown in size and strength and ignores the international community, including the US. Successive US governments, beginning from H W Bush to Bill Clinton to even the present administration, opposed building settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. But Israel remained recalcitrant and went ahead. During the past six decades it was the US that came forward again and again to rescue Israel, either on the battlefield or in international forums, but Israel could hardly reciprocate in favour of the US. Now people in the US are wondering why their government should continue to love and assist a country that is only at the receiving end. They also realise that their love and affection for the Jewish state have brought hatred and animosity from people in the Arab world. This has adversely affected their national security. Judged in this context, President Obama’s assertion that the US is proud of its friendship with Israel does not reflect the whole truth.

President Obama’s advice to Mahmoud Abbas to return to negotiations with Israel despite continued building of settlements in the occupied territories reflects how much the president has yielded to PM Netanyahu. Abbas retorted, “The growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank is dousing young Palestinians’ aspirations to live in a state of their own. This is very dangerous.” In June 2009, President Obama said in Cairo, “America will not turn its back on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own…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.” If the US does not accept the legitimacy of Israeli settlements and believes they should stop, why did Obama make a somersault and suggest that there is no point for negotiations when everything is settled ahead of time? The settlements have increased from 130,000 to over 640,000 since the Oslo peace agreement was signed. At the current rate of progression (now with the shift of US position there is no reason it would stop), in the near future, there would be no land left for the State of Palestine. What would be there for the Palestinian leadership to negotiate?

President Obama, four years ago, left an impression in the Arab world that his administration would be even-handed in search of peace in the Middle East. But Arabs were disillusioned with the continuation of a biased policy by the US. Even during this visit President Obama pledged $ 200 million to upgrade the “Iron Dome missile system” in Israel but made no such gesture to the Palestinians. The peace process did not make any headway; it was left dormant during the past four years. The US administration applied all tactics to dissuade Abbas from seeking statehood at the UN. He was threatened with the loss of financial aid. But the Palestinians remained steadfast. The UN welcomed “Palestinian Statehood” in November 2012 by an overwhelming majority. Only six countries voted against the resolution, the US being one of them.

President Obama and PM Netanyahu agreed in their forecast that Iran is one year away from reaching nuclear capability. Now how to confront a potential nuclear power, Iran? Obama is reported to have said in Tel Aviv that each nation has the right to defend itself. One of the American news channels has interpreted this as tacit US approval of action that Israel deems necessary; and in doing so, it can strike Iranian nuclear installations. This is a departure from the earlier position of the administration to restrain Israel from taking unilateral action. Should the situation escalate and Israel launch air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, it would inflame the entire region. Iran would retaliate and the conflict will have far reaching consequences. In the event the US lends support to Israel, it would risk further alienating the Muslim world. President Obama in his four-day trip might have repaired strained relations with Netanyahu, but he has failed to prevail upon Israel to stop building settlements. The peace process thus could not be revived. President Obama’s failure to be even-handed in dealing with Israel and Palestine and his apparent “shift from restraint” to confront Iran has the potential to endanger world peace.

The writer is a former international civil servant, a former UN official and a freelance columnist. Based currently in the US, he can be reached at rahman.chowdhury@yahoo.com