Fears grow in Israel on likely tensions with US
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Daily News with wires
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Mayıs 20, 2009 00:00
JERUSALEM - Trouble may be brewing for new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after deep disagreements exposed over key issues with US President Barack Obama in their first meeting at the White House. Mainstream Israeli media reflects rising fears over ’a new era between Israel and its main ally,’ as senior Israeli officials play down a likely dispute
The deep differences exposed during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's first meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama yesterday stoked fears in Israel of cooling ties with its main ally.
Senior Israeli officials played down fears of a rift with Washington, but Israeli newspapers had been filled with alarmist editorials that warned of a stark change of course in U.S. policy towards Israel under Obama.
Obama opened his deepest foray into the Middle East quagmire, telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late on Monday that he must stop Jewish settlements and should grasp the "historic opportunity" to make peace with the Palestinians.
But hawkish Israeli premier refused to commit to an independent Palestinian state during talks, adding Israel was ready to continue peace talks without a commitment for statehood.
New era begins
"Agreed to disagree," was the headline in the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot a day after the key Washington talks laid bare the discord on Middle East peacemaking and Iran. And some warned that the change of tone in Washington boded ill for the special relationship that Israel has enjoyed with its main backer over the years.
"A new era has begun in relations between Israel and the United States," said Eytan Gilboa, a political science professor at Bar-Ilan University. An editorial in the popular Ynet Web site wrote: "The honeymoon that lasted for dozens of years has apparently reached an end, and now, only now, will the normal life of the American-Israeli couple get under way." "Bibi's from Mars, Obama's from Venus," Agence France-Presse news agency quoted another editorial in Ynet as saying. Netanyahu was to meet with House and Senate leaders and a group of Jewish legislators, as Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review went to press yesterday. He was also to lay out his Mideast vision and make his case for strong action against Iran.
In contrast to his predecessor George W. Bush, who was considered extremely sympathetic to Israel, Obama has vowed to pursue the peace process vigorously and has assembled a team experienced in the tricky task of peacemaking in the volatile region. Obama's background has also set him apart from his predecessors vis-?-vis Israel, analysts said. He has adopted a new approach that could mean a downgrading of sorts to the Jewish state's privileged position in U.S. policy, they added.
"The new American president does not have a particular sentiment towards Israel," Gilboa said. "He is defending his interests and his global approach to the Middle East, which includes a rapprochement with the Arab world at the expense of privileged relations with Israel. If Netanyahu persists in his positions, there is a potential risk of confrontation that will translate into an enormous price for Israel," he said.
Akiva Eldar, a veteran journalist with the liberal Haaretz daily, wrote: "I have never seen an official meeting in Washington that ended with so many differences being publicly expressed."
Others dismiss the alarmist tone, but saying that despite their differences the United States and Israel remain strategic allies. "For Israel, the Obama era has nothing to do with that of his predecessor George W. Bush, but the historical American-Israeli ties, profound and numerous, cannot be put into question," said Gerald Steinberg, also a political science professor at Bar-Ilan University.
Also yesterday, the chief Palestinian negotiator criticized Netanyahu’s stand over the two-state solution, saying Obama’s call for a Palestinian homeland "fell on deaf ears." Speaking to Qatar-based Al Jazeera network, Saeb Erekat indicated that Palestinians had low expectations of the outcome. "We appreciate very much what Mr. Obama said ... [But] I'm sure this fell on deaf ears. Mr. Netanyahu will continue to be in a state of denial," he told Al Jazeera. "He will not accept the two-state solution, he will not accept agreements signed. He will continue with settlement activities and he thinks he can beat about the bush by more vagueness and linguistics and public relations campaigns."
Senior Israeli officials played down fears of a rift with Washington, but Israeli newspapers had been filled with alarmist editorials that warned of a stark change of course in U.S. policy towards Israel under Obama.
Obama opened his deepest foray into the Middle East quagmire, telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late on Monday that he must stop Jewish settlements and should grasp the "historic opportunity" to make peace with the Palestinians.
But hawkish Israeli premier refused to commit to an independent Palestinian state during talks, adding Israel was ready to continue peace talks without a commitment for statehood.
New era begins
"Agreed to disagree," was the headline in the mass-circulation Yediot Aharonot a day after the key Washington talks laid bare the discord on Middle East peacemaking and Iran. And some warned that the change of tone in Washington boded ill for the special relationship that Israel has enjoyed with its main backer over the years.
"A new era has begun in relations between Israel and the United States," said Eytan Gilboa, a political science professor at Bar-Ilan University. An editorial in the popular Ynet Web site wrote: "The honeymoon that lasted for dozens of years has apparently reached an end, and now, only now, will the normal life of the American-Israeli couple get under way." "Bibi's from Mars, Obama's from Venus," Agence France-Presse news agency quoted another editorial in Ynet as saying. Netanyahu was to meet with House and Senate leaders and a group of Jewish legislators, as Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review went to press yesterday. He was also to lay out his Mideast vision and make his case for strong action against Iran.
In contrast to his predecessor George W. Bush, who was considered extremely sympathetic to Israel, Obama has vowed to pursue the peace process vigorously and has assembled a team experienced in the tricky task of peacemaking in the volatile region. Obama's background has also set him apart from his predecessors vis-?-vis Israel, analysts said. He has adopted a new approach that could mean a downgrading of sorts to the Jewish state's privileged position in U.S. policy, they added.
"The new American president does not have a particular sentiment towards Israel," Gilboa said. "He is defending his interests and his global approach to the Middle East, which includes a rapprochement with the Arab world at the expense of privileged relations with Israel. If Netanyahu persists in his positions, there is a potential risk of confrontation that will translate into an enormous price for Israel," he said.
Akiva Eldar, a veteran journalist with the liberal Haaretz daily, wrote: "I have never seen an official meeting in Washington that ended with so many differences being publicly expressed."
Others dismiss the alarmist tone, but saying that despite their differences the United States and Israel remain strategic allies. "For Israel, the Obama era has nothing to do with that of his predecessor George W. Bush, but the historical American-Israeli ties, profound and numerous, cannot be put into question," said Gerald Steinberg, also a political science professor at Bar-Ilan University.
Also yesterday, the chief Palestinian negotiator criticized Netanyahu’s stand over the two-state solution, saying Obama’s call for a Palestinian homeland "fell on deaf ears." Speaking to Qatar-based Al Jazeera network, Saeb Erekat indicated that Palestinians had low expectations of the outcome. "We appreciate very much what Mr. Obama said ... [But] I'm sure this fell on deaf ears. Mr. Netanyahu will continue to be in a state of denial," he told Al Jazeera. "He will not accept the two-state solution, he will not accept agreements signed. He will continue with settlement activities and he thinks he can beat about the bush by more vagueness and linguistics and public relations campaigns."