Defence against offence: US Defence Secretary warned Israel about isolation in Middle East.

Israel stands against negotiations with Palestinians after  reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. The statements by two top political figures in the US policy have told such approach to conflict the US policy in the Middle East. First President Obama declared that 1967 borders are acceptable approach in the negotiations for the US interests in the region. Then State Secretary H. Clinton said that he US government looks forward to a dialogue with legitimate Islamic forces.  

The Netanyahu government has not been responsive to such new trend in global policy quite reasonably echoing the rise of popular movement in Arab world and reshuffling the relationship of countries of “Arab spring” with the Western governments.  We have been referring to the increasing pressure on Israel to halt settlement construction and start peace negotiations. http://blog-abunajla.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html  However the Israeli government resilience might have been rooted in conceivable discrepancies in the US administration concerning priorities of partnerships and relationship with Arab countries and Israel.

Today Defence secretary of the US Lean Panetta warned Israel to avoid eventual isolation and called to stay devoted to partnerships in Middle East, which certainly alluded to the recent chill in relationship with Turkey. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/20111231539907422.html. It is Saturday today, and a response has not come from Netanyahu’s office. The statements, if any could be harsh, but the point is what finally come up in the actual policy of Israeli government. Has the time come to change a stand to negotiations, or is there a rising trend to government changes in Israel, and the third, the less desirable option could be continuing ignorance of the new trend in the Middle East, increasing confrontation, and presumably further isolation of Israel?

Obama’s speech and talks with Netanyahu: no agreements, but discrepancy has been evident

The US President Obama’s anticipated address to the people and governments in Middle East was delivered on Thursday this week, the negotiations with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu followed on the next day on Friday. The outcomes of what comes to the Palestine conflict are disappointing. Neither Arabs were happy, nor did Israel accept what we may define as evidently clearer US stand on the way to the peace in Palestine.

No return to borders before 1967 for Israel, - openly declared PM Netanyahu to disagree with basic approach sounded in President Obama’s speech. The time of US Administration release of their stand immediately before the American-Israeli summit might be seen as a pressure on Israeli government, however the final outcome was disappointing on the first view.  One can think that the US has made a step away from its traditional partnerships, both in Arab world and Israel. There was not any evident support and recognition of new opportunities within the Hamas and Fatah rapprochement achieved by Egypt facilitation, and nor open support to such and Egyptian role. And the borders suggested as before 1967 were refused by Israeli government.

However, emerging democracies in Egypt and Tunisia were promised to get substantial technical support. On the other hand a doubt of Hamas peaceful intentions was sounded and their recognition of the state of Israel was rigorously requested, which made the US stand closer on that point with Israel. Especially cautious was the part of the speech addressing other partnership in Arab world: legitimacy of Bahrain government was supported and the message was to invite establish “a dialogue”. Even Bashar Assad was invited to lead the transition, or “go out of way” nevertheless.

The balance of messages justifies that the US will most probably keep a pause and will not act rigorously to pressure for some while, presumably till the upcoming presidential election.  The speech was more of ideology and principle approach than practical interference value. And that enabled some observers to denote the expected engagement of the US will do the “leadership in passive voice”: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115209414145884.html

 Having recognized the immense role the US play in the global policy many those who seek changes might be interested to expect the second term of Obama presidency as promising more, rather than any new administration. And Obama’s speech comprised such justifications. The world has learned about what the President, who has come to change traditional policy, might make a principal approach of the US policy. In Israel powerful opposition forces did not share and openly disagreed with the Netanyahu’s response. http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=221472 . A promise of solid assistance to renovating Egypt sounded as a support of the policy trends of interim government.

Thus the months ahead to the US presidential election in 2012 is not a break, but very important time for reconsidering the traditional priorities, reviewing the principles of political vision and promoting more confidence and understanding of all actors in response to emerging trends and values of Arab resurrection movement.