If Obama Is Serious He should get tough with Israel

[muriel_volestrangler]

...
The departure point for a viable peace deal—either with Syria or the Palestinians—must not be based purely on what the political traffic in Israel will bear, but on the requirements of all sides. The new president seems tougher and more focused than his predecessors; he's unlikely to become enthralled by either of Israel's two leading candidates for prime minister—centrist Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, or Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, if it's the latter, he may well find himself (like Clinton) privately frustrated with Netanyahu's tough policies. Unlike Clinton, if Israeli behavior crosses the line, he should allow those frustrations to surface publicly in the service of American national interests.

The issue at hand is to find the right balance in America's ties with Israel. Driven by shared values and based on America's 60-year commitment to Israel's security and well-being, the special relationship is rock solid. But for the past 16 years, the United States has allowed that special bond to become exclusive in ways that undermine America's, and Israel's, national interests.

If Obama is serious about peacemaking he'll have to adjust that balance in two ways. First, whatever the transgressions of the Palestinians (and there are many, including terror, violence and incitement), he'll also have to deal with Israel's behavior on the ground. The Gaza crisis is a case in point. Israel has every reason to defend itself against Hamas. But does it make sense for America to support its policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for 1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no.

Then there's the settlements issue. In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity—including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions—does to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability. And this can only come from the president. But Obama should make it clear that America will not lend its auspices to a peacemaking process in which the actions of either side willfully undermine the chances of an agreement America is trying to broker. No process at all would be better than a dishonest one that hurts America's credibility.
...
Miller, an adviser for Democratic and Republican administrations and author of “The Much Too Promised Land,” is at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177716/output/print

The bolding is mine - I wanted to emphasise it because The Guardian's blogger on the US, Michael Tomasky, calls it 'shocking':

WHAT?!?!? I suppose this doesn't rule out the possibility or even likelihood that serious discussions were indeed entertained below the level of prime minister, but…the settlements in the West Bank are 90% of the political problem here, as everyone knows. How this issue could go undiscussed with a single Israeli head of state for a quarter-century is just mind-blowing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/jan/05/israel-gaza-settlements

And I'm pretty shocked, too - though it might explain why progress has been so slow, if that's thought the kind of subject you can't bring up with a Prime Minister.

[StudsT]

1. agreed but how likely is that to happen?

but israel has enjoyed the benefit of the doubt for more than 60 years now so if we REALLY want to solve this problem it is time to be an IMPARTIAL and HONEST Arbiter.

and that is the root of the problem and mainly why it has gone on for so long, imho.

StudsT

[stillcool]

2. I think China, Russia, and Europe...

need to step up to the plate. The 'shared value' of might makes right, for some reason is not working.

[Vegasaurus]

3. Would you like them to take Israel out or what? nt

[stillcool]

4. why would you assume

that other nations would want to do that? Is the United States the only ally in the world Israel has?