Wednesday, August 25, 2010

1 Year For Netanyahu And Abbas To Reach A Deal That Will "Satisfy Washington"

[The official] added that the president has put his credibility on the line by inviting everyone to the White House and is more invested in this issue than the previous U.S. government was.

Just how invested is Obama in the latest rounds of peace talks? It seems that Obama is invested enough to turn the US from facilitator to participant. YnetNews reports:
Washington expects Israel, Palestinians to use timeframe given for negotiations to overcome difficulties, strike comprehensive peace, US official tells reports in Jerusalem. America won't accept partial deal, he said

A partial peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, even if achieved within a year, will not satisfy Washington, a US official said Tuesday.[emphasis added]
In her post, Beyond Ludicrous, Arlene Kushner notes the unusual language that the US is using in threatening that a partial peace "will not satisfy Washington"--as if satisfying Washington is what this is all about.

If indeed the US can no longer act as an objective middleman between the two parties, then what is the function of the US supposed to be? If Obama is so intent on reaching a final peace agreement that nothing else really matters--least of all whether Abbas and the PA even have the backing of Palestinians to enter talks--then reaching a US approved peace deal is likely to be worse than the status quo.

And if after 1 year there is a stalemate and the US decides that it is an arbiter that can impose a solution on both Israel and the Palestinian Authority--well, does anyone seriously believe that the Obama administration has the foreign policy experience and expertise to carry something like that off?

Me neither.

Technorati Tag: and .
Post a Comment