Obama (or Netanyahu) as modern Moses!

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/imperium/2010/03/22/obama-or-netanyahu-modern-moses

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has delivered another "The US and I personally are in love with Israel" speech to America's pro-Israeli lobby - with a twist.

Her three-part speech at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) on Monday underlined Washington's unshaken strategic and moral commitment to Israel "for ever" and, in the second part, threatened Iran with tougher sanctions and warned it will never allow it to develop nuclear weapons.

In the third, and much awaited part, of the speech, Clinton delineated a hardcore realist approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the context of US security in the Middle East that envisions a freeze on settlement paving the way for direct talks that culminate in two states.

Like Moses, Obama - an unflinching supporter of Israel who has its interest and security at heart - will take it and the region to the promised land.

[Supporters of John McCain, the Republican candidate in the 2008 US presidential election, also depicted Obama, albeit sarcastically, as the "One" - that is, Moses - during the campaign.]

If you doubt it, Clinton said, look at what we've done yesterday, meaning the healthcare bill.

Realists vs neoconservatives

Two decades and seven transitional agreements since the peace process started, the US and Israel can't seem to agree between themselves, let alone with the Palestinians, on the necessary condition to resolve the Palestinian question.

US realists including the Obama administration (and the Israeli Labor Party) believe that a two-state solution is good for Israel as a "democratic Jewish state". Clinton made it as clear in her speech to Aipac today.

Otherwise, continued Jewish settlement will exacerbate Israel's security and lead to apartheid state, to quote Israel Defence Minister and Labor leader Ehud Barak.

Likewise, a Palestinian state is consistent with US national security as it would help boost the "moderate" anti Iranian, anti-Islamic fundamentalist movements, Clinton pleaded with her audience.

Escalation in Palestine would endanger US lives in Middle East war zones, according to General David Petreaus, the head of US Central Command.

On the other hand, US nneoconservatives, like the previous Bush administration and by extension the Israeli Likud party, reckon that US support for the "Jewish state" - a strategic ally and "moral soulmate" - must be unconditional.

It's up to Israel alone to define the outcome of any negotiations with the Palestinians according to its security imperatives.

Israel's approach to Palestine, they argue, must be seen in the context of the US war on terror and against violent extremists in the region from Hamas in Gaza to the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Two decades of more-of-the-same

For two decades, progress and regress in the peace process was measured by balancing out the two approaches. When the gap is substantial as it has been over the last year, paralysis or a fallout can be expected.

In 1991, the Bush administration refused to back down, and its confrontation with Israel - over the same settlement issue - paved the way for convening the Madrid International peace conference.

The urgency is far higher today. Unlike Bush Sr, who presided over a US victorious in the Cold War and the war against Iraq, President Obama presides over major foreign-policy crises as he tries to finish a war in Iraq and escalate another in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Moreover, the deterioration in the occupied territories is creating a credibility problem for the Obama administration as it tries to rally Arab support against Tehran and radical fundamentalist groups.

However, as long as Likud and Labor are governing together and in coalition with the two most radical Israeli parties, Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu, US pressure will fail to lead to concrete concessions.

As in 1992, US will save face only when a new less extremist Israeli government comes into being. But would that resolve the Palestinian questions?

Palestine, nuance or nuisance

Meanwhile, the Palestinian and Arab leaderships are watching Hillary Clinton from the sidelines, hoping that the US present the Netanyahu government with ultimatum will be disappointed.

But even if the Obama administration forces the Israeli government to accept its approach, the result could hardly meet the minimum requirement of the Palestinians.

A Palestinian state as a compromise between the US and Israel, might enjoy the trappings of sovereignty, but in reality it would be no more than a Bantustan.

Palestinian leaders who still need Israeli passes to move around and out of occupied Palestine, already welcome foreign dignitaries in front of a guard of honour as they did when they welcomed UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon over the weekend.

However, as Clinton warned, the Israeli civilian and military occupation will soon reach the point of no return, rendering separation into two sovereign and viable states impossible.

In fact, the borders problem will soon be insolvable without major ethnic cleansing - which means war - or apartheid, leading to de facto one-state solution.

The disagreement goes on ...

Ultimately it was in the latter part of her speech that Clinton revealed the administration's three-part explanation why Israel must accept a Palestinians state.

Israel faces three main challenges - demography, technology and ideology - that work against its security and against the security of the US.

Although she promised that the US will augment its military and diplomatic support for Israel, she arged that rockets from Gaza and Lebanon have no military solutions.

Furthermore, Palestinian population growth, coupled with expanding Israeli settlements, renders separation (as we said above) impossible.

Likewise, Israel's policies in Palestine is feeding Middle Eastern and other "extremists" with much ammunition, that a peaceful solution will deny them.

Needless to say, the Netanyahu government and the US neocons have answered to all of the three challenges: a bilateral commitment to combat terrorism and extremism, not give in or reward the extremists.

As Netanyahu will tell you, Islamist extremists don't need reasons for actions. They are terrorists because they are. Or, in his words, the reason for religious extremism and terrorism is the terrorists and the fundamentalists.

Obama can play Moses all he wants, but Netanyahu seeks King David persona!