<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><h1><font class="Apple-style-span" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px;">Obama won't restrain Israel - he can't. Rupert Cornwell</span></font></h1><div>But if he had guts, and principles aside from U.S. "national security interests", he might.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/rupert-cornwell/rupert-cornwell-obama-wont-restrain-israel--he-cant-1922958.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/rupert-cornwell/rupert-cornwell-obama-wont-restrain-israel--he-cant-1922958.html</a></div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div>…Now that opportunity ["progress on the Palestinian dispute"] has all but vanished. For the
Palestinians and other Arabs, Israel's move has confirmed what they
suspected all along, that the Jewish state – at least under its present
management – is concerned not with concessions, even symbolic ones, but
with creating facts on the ground. Mr Netanyahu however believes he can
call Mr Obama's bluff and ride out the storm. The plan to build 1,600
settlements, he says, will go ahead, whatever Washington's demands to
the contrary. And on all counts, he's probably right.<p class="font-null"> And the reasons for such confidence? The first is his
calculation that for Washington, whatever its anger at Israel's
behaviour, the need for strategic co-operation with its closest ally in
the Middle East against the Iranian nuclear threat will trump its
concern for the Palestinians – even if the two issues are connected. The
second is his confidence that the President will never ultimately defy
the mighty pro-Israel lobby in Washington.</p><p class="font-null">
Beyond the shadow of a doubt, Mr Obama is more sympathetic to the plight
of the Palestinians than any recent president. In his Cairo speech last
June, he spoke movingly of the daily humiliations faced by a people
living under occupation: the situation for the Palestinian people, he
said, was "intolerable." He followed up by demanding a total freeze on
settlements, as proof the Israelis were serious about a peace deal.</p><p class="font-null"> But Mr Netanyahu said no, and the Obama
administration, essentially folded. It was forced to content itself with
a limited and partial freeze, from which East Jerusalem was excluded.
When Hillary Clinton praised this modest step as "unprecedented,"
disappointed Palestinians and Arabs concluded that for all the fine
words in Cairo, it was business as usual in Washington. When push came
to shove, the proclaimed "honest broker" tilted invariably and
irretrievably in favour of the Israelis.</p><p class="font-null"> Mr
Obama's defenders now say that if he misplayed his hand, it was because
he had too much on his plate, obliged to corral up crucial healthcare
votes one moment, plot the future of the US banking system the next, and
then make a flawless move in the three-dimensional chess game that is
Middle East policy. In fact, his greatest error was not to think through
the clout of America's pro-Israel lobby.</p><p class="font-null"> When
the university professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published
The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy in 2007, some intitial reaction
was scornful. Critics dismissed the book's thesis as exaggeration at
best, sheer fantasy at worst. There was no sinister lobby, only the
instinctive collective sympathy felt towards Israel by ordinary
Americans.</p><p class="font-null"> But power lies in the perception of
power, and no organisation in Washington is perceived to wield more
power than AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. For
proof, look no further than January 2009, when most of the rest of the
world was horrified at the Israeli offensive in Gaza. At that moment the
US House of Representatives, by a vote of 390 to five, chose to blame
the entire crisis on Hamas.</p><p class="font-null"> Now the lobby is
working to defuse the present row, naturally on Israel's terms. First
AIPAC expressed its "serious concern" at events, reminding (or perhaps
warning) of the "vast bipartisan support in Congress and the American
people" for the US/Israeli relationship. Then the Israeli ambassador
here issued a statement claiming he had been "flagrantly misquoted" in
reports saying he had warned his staff of the worst crisis in 35 years
between the two countries. By Tuesday evening Ms Clinton herself, who
last week was accusing Mr Netanhayu of insulting the US, poured further
oil on the already quietening waters: "I don't buy the notion of a
crisis."</p><p class="font-null"> And there we have it. The settlements
in East Jerusalem will go ahead whatever the US thinks. The proximity
talks, even if they do proceed, are doomed in advance. And next week
AIPAC holds here what it bills as the largest policy conference in its
history. The Israeli Prime Minister will be in town to address it, so
will Ms Clinton. </p><p class="font-null">President Obama however will
be about as far away as possible, on a long-planned visit to Indonesia
and Australia. And probably just as well. Grovels, even the most elegant
grovels, are not an edifying spectacle.</p><p class="font-null"><a href="mailto:r.cornwell@independent.co.uk">r.cornwell@independent.co.uk</a></p><br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by
<a href="http://www.mailscanner.info/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>, and is
<br />believed to be clean.
</body></html>