United States President Barack Obama explained bluntly in a published interview his “hardest” decisions about America’s role in the world, while a pro-Israel conference in Washington featured four front-runners in the ongoing presidential race — three Republicans and a prominent Democrat, Hillary Clinton — the likeliest winner. The 22-page article on Obama’s tenure was written by the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who had authored several interviews with former presidents.
Early on, Obama’s view, Goldberg noted has been that “after decades of accepting the world as it is in the (Middle East), we have (had) a chance to pursue the world as it should be.” In other words this will “include a set of universal rights …free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law and the right to choose your own leaders”.
Three years later, Obama felt that “the Arab Spring gave up its early promise, and brutality and dysfunction overwhelmed the Middle East”. Accordingly, “the president grew disillusioned (and) some of his deepest disappointments concerned Middle East leaders themselves”.
Specifically, Goldberg revealed that, “Obama has long believed that (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu could bring about a two-state solution that would protect Israel’s status as a Jewish-majority democracy, but is too fearful and politically paralysed to do so.” He continued: “In one of Netanyahu’s meetings with the president, the Israeli prime minister launched into something of a lecture about the dangers of the brutal region in which he lives, and Obama felt that Netanyahu was behaving in a condescending fashion, and was also avoiding the subject at hand: Peace negotiations.”
Unbelievably, in a video address last Tuesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) conference in Washington D.C., Netanyahu complained that the United Nations has been unrealistically hostile towards Israel and urged the US to veto resolutions that aim to pressure Israel into a settlement with the Palestinians. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that “just before Netanyahu spoke, four Aipac leaders took the stage to denounce remarks made at the conference on Monday night when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticised Obama”. He said Obama may be the worst thing to ever happen to Israel, “believe me, believe me”. Aipac denounced the statement, which was applauded by the audience.
In another shocking revelation, for the first time, in the Washington Post, detailed how a long-time chief of Israel’s intelligence service, Meir Dagan, had fought to stop Israel from bombing Iran. Three years ago, Dagan, the former director of Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, disclosed to David E. Sanger that he “was forced to end his long tenure” at the Mossad by Netanyahu who he “feared was on the cusp of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities”. He said at the time, “there is no one to stop him anymore”.
This disclosure should encourage Arab lenders to continue speaking out loudly for the intervention of the UN, a point that former US president Jimmy Carter advocated once again this week. Their continued silence is disappointing. Also, the Arab media ought to step forward and agitate against the Arab silence over this highly recommended approach, especially since Obama is believed willing to increase US military assistance to the level of $40 billion (Dh147.12 billion), if not $50 billion, to Israel for the next 10 years — beginning in 2008.
In an article in USA Today, the former president recalled that in May 2011, Obama had expressed the official US position on peace parameters: “The United States believes that negotiations could result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states.”
Carter, conceding that although “there is little prospect of a breakthrough during the remaining months of this administration, ... (but) a clear statement of principles could have a lasting impact, enshrined in a UN Security Council resolution and based on the president’s previous statements and on recent assessments by the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, as he sought a peace agreement”.
He concluded that “such a declaration of US policy, even near the end of the president’s term, could have a powerful and beneficial effect in Europe and elsewhere over prospects for a comprehensive peace agreement. It would at least help to keep options open.”
George S. Hishmeh is a Washington-based columnist. He can be contacted at ghishmeh@gulfnews.com
