Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli screenplay: How Bibi and Obama pose as actors, not directors

 Print

Leave a Comment

Behind every meeting, there are the untold stories. I like to think of these symbolic gestures as a theater setup to include actors. Sometimes, if you know enough about what’s happening, you can even figure out who the marionettes are. From this, it becomes evident that the key players are simply moving in accordance to pre-emptive deals made by these marionettes. The manipulators of these marionettes being the Israel lobby, the fundamentalist ideologies of both Zionist and Palestinian extremist groups, as well as the compromised foreign policy of the United States.  It is extremely important to understand first the behind-the-scenes developments of the conflict as well as the past of both Netanyahu and Obama before attempting to analyze the meeting itself.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a staunch military Zionist. What does this mean? To start, let’s define Zionism. It is a religious-nationalist movement aimed towards establishing and maintaining the religious homeland of the Jews. This religious homeland, defined in the Judeo-Christian faiths, has been established as the area formerly known as Palestine. The religious significance of this movement is extremely important, because it rules out the establishment of a Jewish homeland in any other region of the world.

For Netanyahu, this includes retaining rights to the Occupied Territories and all of Jerusalem. To do this, he continues to be an adamant supporter of illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. During his previous term as prime minister, Netanyahu went so far as to issue an apology to illegal settlers in the Occupied Territories regarding cuts to their federal welfare checks while simultaneously celebrating the drop of Palestinian birth rates in these areas.

To make matters worse, Netanyahu believes that U.S.-backed peace talks are “a waste of time.” Combined with his previous statement on Palestinians, how can one trust that the future of Palestinian statehood and well being are even part of Bibi’s everyday conversation?

Obama enters the current conflict well-intentioned and diplomatically hopeful. But much like his predecessors, I believe that he will share the same political frustrations as Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, to name a few. For Truman, his anger at the persistence of the Zionist lobby during his time pushed him to allow his own ambassadors to ensure the implementation of UN Resolution 181 through whatever means it would take, including bribery of other member states and political manipulation of the rest. Kennedy was faced with lack of Israeli cooperation in his attempts to monitor their nuclear weapons programs. Not only did this lead to the development of Israel’s nuclear stockpile, but contributed to the much-feared proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East. Jimmy Carter expressed much of his frustrations post-presidency, particularly evident in his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. And Bill Clinton was left with the wreckage of the Camp David talks, an event that top Israeli officials would later come to admit that they themselves would not have accepted had they been Palestinian.

Obama is facing the immense power of the Israel lobby (particularly AIPAC) domestically, and he is also confronting a man like Netanyahu abroad. Since his inauguration, AIPAC has successfully managed to campaign and release some of its top officials from criminal charges of treason - charges that arose from their decision to pass sensitive information regarding the US onto Israeli intelligence. And since his inauguration, Netanyahu has already come out and proclaimed US involvement in the conflict as a “waste of time”.

The recent meeting between Netanyahu and Obama, it seems, was nothing but a façade.

For peace negotiations to truly move forward, I believe a three-party system is inevitably doomed for failure. Just as Israel uses the United States as its personal proxy, I believe another power will need to become involved to promote the Palestinian interests in a non-violent and productive way. So far, it is evident that potential and legitimate candidates have failed to assume this role, notably the Arab League and the Arab-American communities within the United States. And as a result, we have militant and violent actors such as Hezbollah and Hamas that are attempting to assume the face of Palestine.

This new distribution of power could also very well include the European Union, who has had a history of sympathizing with the Palestinians. After all, Israel did just threaten the EU to “tone down its criticism” of her. But given the immense socio-economic leverage that the EU holds, it may just be enough to offset the Israeli-stronghold on the United States. Obama will not be able to turn his speeches into action alone. Netanyahu has made this clear with his statements and previous political behavior as prime minister of Israel.

And thus the cycle continues of glossed-over talks and political meetings that ultimately equate to no real progress.

But if the marionettes on both sides of the conflict (including the militant organizations among Palestinians as well as Zionists within the Israeli government) are faced with new, key players that will not participate in pre-emptive deals like the United States, we may be seeing the release of a newer, much more peaceful play set on the world stage.