“Israel” is an obstacle in the path of peace

Obama decided to pursue the policy of George Bush the father that was with Shamir in the nineties; when he put pressure on Shamir to enter into peace negotiations by holding up a loan of ten billion dollars requested by Shamir, who was the Prime Minister of the Jewish state at that time, to contain the wave of the Russian immigrants in that period.

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, President Barack Obama suggested for the White House days ago the defense budget by 2013, which is worth 3.8 trillion dollars. According to Israeli analysts and security specialists, this budget is very low and it affects the possibilities and the level of mutual cooperation, as well as the joint plans between the two sides. They also considered that it would affect the support and financing of the defense systems regarding the missiles that value 6.3 million dollars; the “Arrow” (Hetz) missiles system and the “magic wand” common system are among those systems.

This proposal faced opposition from American senators, especially the Republicans, who are exploiting the support of Israel and maintaining the security and existence of Israel, as well as Iran’s file, in the battle of the internal elections of the Republican Party so that to gain the voices of the Jews to win the nomination of the Party and to engage in the next presidential election facing President Obama.

Thus, the question that should be raised strongly, which has meaningful and significant indications, is: Is Netanyahu breaking the rule by this offer? I believe this is not the case, for the Israeli relations have witnessed some of the difficult times and stations, where some of the presidents were obliged to put pressure on Israel to modify some of its positions and policies to take account of the American interests in place of the inclusive Israeli interests in the region.

President Bush the father dared to do this with Shamir; he sent a message to Shamir in June 1990 in which he warned him that if the differences between the two countries continue to exist on the issues of settlements and the peace process, then: “There will be no option for the United States but only to define its position clearly and publicly at the United Nations”.

Bush notified Shamir “Not to think of causing a change in the priorities of the Government of Israel, because our ability to advance the peace process depends on reaching an understanding between our two governments on the subject of settlement”.

Moreover, President Carter also showed some of the symbolic power and diplomacy to oppose the building of settlements on the one hand, and to pressure to engage in the peace process on the other hand.

In fact, the U.S. presidents possess some power and strength of will to put pressure on the Israelis, but they do not prefer doing so as part of the internal accounts of the political forces represented in the two U.S. parties i.e. the Democratic and the Republican to win the support of the Jewish lobby in the United States. Carter, the former President, once said: “There is a limit to what we can do to impose our will on a state that has sovereignty”.

Israel is an obstacle in the path of peace:
This is a strategy established by Abu Mazen, after the understandings with Hamas, based upon which the two parties built the temporary understandings of the next phase; post-reconciliation, the formation of the government, and the phase of conducting the elections that apparently gained the support of the Arabs.

However, regardless of its steadfastness in front of the aspects of internal and external threat and sabotage, and regardless of the motives of its parties, it will not be the magic stick that will change the Western view of the strategic relationship with Israel, as well as the Western project basically and the U.S. position as a strategic ally of Israel.

However, the current U.S. administration recognizes the obligation of having an effect directly and indirectly to re-evaluate after the coordinates in the U.S. policies in the region, and ignoring what is happening in the Middle East is a political stupidity and contradicts with the strategic interests in the region. The U.S. strategy is based on containment contrary to that of Israel, which is based on the factors of deterrent force.

The Obama administration believes that it is logic to contain the changes in the Middle East, especially the fundamental ones as the revolution in Egypt and the relationship with the new Islamic regime. Iran as a regional country in the region have the chances of power and the basic role in developing a regional power in the region, and the other factor is the Palestinian agreement, reconciliation, and how this is related to the negotiations.

Both the U.S. administration and President Obama are walking on the same path of the previous administrations that have found themselves forced to put pressure on Israel to preserve the U.S. interests in the region, but what distinguishes this era is the defeat of the Arab regime in face of the national and revolutionary power in the region, what forms a centrifugal force in face of the forces of colonialism in the region. Hence, Obama is trying to break the basis, by twisting the arm of Netanyahu to fit the priorities of Israel with the U.S. interests in the region.