Mr. Netanyahu, who has had strained relations with the US president, headed for Washington saying the Mr. Obama’s vision of a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967—as part of his vision for an elusive US-brokered peace deal—could leave Israel “indefensible.”
The White House talks had never been expected to yield any significant progress to revive long-stalled peace talks, but now that prospect seemed dimmer than ever, according to Reuters.
His position essentially embraces the Palestinian view that the state they seek in the West Bank and Gaza should largely be drawn along the lines that existed before the 1967 war in which Israel captured those territories and East Jerusalem.
On the eve of Mr. Netanyahu’s visit, it was seen as a message that President Obama expects Israel to eventually make big concessions.
“The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence,” Mr. Netanyahu said in a statement before flying to the United States for his talks with Mr. Obama, according to Reuters.
Mr. Obama’s first outright declaration of his stance on the contested issue of borders could help ease doubts in the Arab world about his commitment to acting as an even-handed broker.
But the Democratic president quickly came under fire from Republican critics, who accused him of betraying Israel, the closest US ally in the region. Pushing Prime Minister Netanyahu risks alienating the Jewish state’s base of support among the US public and in Congress as Mr. Obama seeks re-election in 2012.
“President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus,” thundered former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, generally viewed as the frontrunner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to Agence-France Presse.
“He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends,” Mr. Romney said in a statement.
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, another likely 2012 contender, said in a statement that Mr. Obama’s proposal was “a mistaken and very dangerous demand.”
“At this time of upheaval in the Middle East, it’s never been more important for America to stand strong for Israel and for a united Jerusalem,” he said, according to Agence-France Presse.
“To send a signal to the Palestinians that America will increase its demands on our ally Israel, on the heels of the Palestinian Authority’s agreement with the Hamas terrorist organization, is a disaster waiting to happen,” said Mr. Pawlenty.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas welcomed Obama’s efforts to renew the talks that collapsed last year.
Despite the tensions, Mr. Obama has carved out three hours for Netanyahu on Friday, including a working lunch. Visits have not always gone smoothly, however.
In Thursday’s speech, President Obama said: “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” of land.
Mr. Obama, in a BBC interview after his speech, made clear that Israel is “going to have to feel confident about its security” before it will be expected to agree to a border arrangement.
Mr. Obama also delivered messages that will be hard for the Palestinians to swallow, suggesting their effort to win UN membership for a Palestinian state is doomed and that they have a lot of explaining to do about a reconciliation deal with Hamas, which the United States regards as a terrorist group.
To reassure Israelis, Mr. Obama recommitted to Israel’s security and said any future Palestinian state must be “non-militarized,” something Mr. Netanyahu has demanded.
But he warned Israel: “The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.”
In a pointed reply, Mr. Netanyahu said he expected “to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of US commitments made to Israel in 2004”—an allusion to a letter by then-President George W. Bush suggesting the Jewish state may keep big settlement blocs as part of any peace pact.
Palestinians say settlement expansion is aimed at denying them a viable state, and successive US administrations have shielded the Jewish state from UN Security Council resolutions condemning such activity.
(Abeer Tayel, an editor at Al Arabiya,
No comments:
Post a Comment