Report: Israel not willing to play ball as long as U.S. does not stop Iran

April 24th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , , , , ,

hamasThe Washington Post reports that Israel’s new right-wing government is unwilling to engage in productive peace talks with the Palestinians until the United States does something about Iran’s nuclear program. This report was later contradicted by Israeli officials, but it is worth spending some time and attention to nonetheless (also because the WaPo based its story on a variety of normally trust worthy sources, giving me the impression that if the aforementioned is not official Israeli policy yet, it was at least meant as a sincere warning to Washington):

The new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran’s suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran’s rising influence in the region, according to top government officials familiar with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s developing policy on the issue.

“It’s a crucial condition if we want to move forward,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, a member of the Israeli parliament and former ambassador to the United States. “If we want to have a real political process with the Palestinians, then you can’t have the Iranians undermining and sabotaging.”

The emerging Israeli position, a significant change from that of previous governments, presents a challenge for President Obama, who has made quick progress on Palestinian statehood a key foreign policy goal. Obama is also trying to begin engagement with Iran as part of a broad effort to slow its nuclear program and curtail its growing strength in the Middle East.

U.S. officials are wary of linking the two issues and, if anything, would like to do the reverse of what Israel has proposed, by using progress in the Israeli-Palestinian talks to curb Iranian influence, which is wielded in the region through anti-Israeli organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

As Ed Morrissey also explains, giving Hamas what it wants – a state for the Palestinian people – without holding Iran responsible for the many crimes it has directly and indirectly committed will only increase Tehran’s influence in the region. Hamas and Iran will both argue that terrorism and Iran’s growing strength and development of nuclear weapons caused Israel to compromise.

Middle Easterners who believe that moderation is required will be discredited and lose the little influence they have.

The two issues – Iran’s nuclear project and peace between Israel and the Palestinians – are related because Iran actively supports Hamas. Hamas would not be as big as it is today without Tehran’s ideological and material support.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Abe Bird
    April 24th, 2009 at 21:29
    Reply | Quote | #1

    “productive peace talks with the Palestinians” … are you kidding?

  2. Saint Michael Traveler
    April 24th, 2009 at 23:32
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Palestine and Israel: one-state or two-state solution

    problems of Palestinian subjugation to Israel occupation are the seeds for an unstable world including the Middle East. The success or failure of the administration of President Obama with Israel would determine the nature of future stability for the Middle East. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton should not allow Israel to dictate the foreign policy of the United States. Israel has used Iran as diversion away from Palestinian struggle for dignity.

    Any rational and humanistic resolution of Palestinian dilemma has been non-starter with Israel. The problems of Palestinian subjugation to Israel occupation are the seeds for an unstable world including the Middle East. Many expect, as previously stated by Iran and many Arab counties, that they would not reject a reasonable break through between Washington and Israel over the Palestinians home state or a Federal State for both people.

    The Palestinian issue, over 40 years of waffling by Israel throwing one excuse after another to derail any prospect, is independent of any other world concern for the US administration. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton should not allow Israel to dictate the foreign policy of the United States. Israel has used Iran as diversion away from creation of an independent Palestinian state.
    What are the options for Palestinian and Israeli people? Among those mostly discussed are: a two-state models for Palestine and Israel, or a Federal State of Israel-Palestine.

    The two-state models for Palestinian and Israeli is not acceptable with Israel. Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two-state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.
    Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.

    USA can’t afford war after war to support failed attempts to stabilize the region. Palestinians have paid a high price for failed attempts to consider the human side of the Palestinians struggle for peaceful life.

    I suggest that only as one nation, Federal State of Israel-Palestine, the peace may endure. We, Americans, have failed to see the both side of the struggle for a lasting peace. As Semitic people, they have common historical and religious heritage.

    Those who advocate one-state solution as a Federal State would also suggest Jerusalem as the capital of the Federation. The advocates for one-state solution stress that under a two-state solution, Jerusalem can not be the capital of Israel. This city is religious holy city belonging to Jews, Muslims and Christians. This city should not be controlled by a theocratic Jewish state; in that case, it should be an open international city.

  3. Jason Arvak
    April 24th, 2009 at 23:50
    Reply | Quote | #3

    It is difficult to form a federal state with one group governed by a party that is openly dedicated to the genocidal extermination of the other group.

    You condemn Israel for treating as a “non-starter” any “rational or humanistic (sic) resolution”, but you don’t acknowledge the legitimate Israeli concerns about Palestinians who want all Jews dead and who hold significant political power within the Palestinian community.

    And until you deal with the real concerns on the Israeli side as well as on the Palestinian side, you will only be whistling in the wind.

    Also, cut-and-paste reposts are lame.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.