Good news for Israel
But!
FP 25. Sept. 2013

Haaretz Sep. 24, 2013

Good news and bad news for Israel in the new 'Obama Doctrine' for the Mideast
By Chemi Shalev

In his UN speech, the U.S. president outlines policy guidelines that enhance his commitment to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons but place a resolution of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians on an equal footing.

Excerpts:
In formulating his “doctrine,” Obama took the threat of military forces a step further than the usual “no options off the table” formula, pledging America’s willingness “to use all elements of our power, including military force.” He said that the United States “will not tolerate” Syrian chemical weapons or Iranian nuclear weapons that are “a threat to our own national security.”

But with this – and the reports that there won’t be any “historic handshake” between Obama and his Iranian counterpart Rohani after all – the good news was over, at least as far as the current Israeli government is concerned.

Obama’s decision to place the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on an equal footing with and adjacent to the Iranian nuclear challenge raised immediate suspicions of a “linkage” between the two issues. Israeli hasbara has devoted decades of efforts to counter descriptions of its confrontation with the Palestinians as the “crux” of the Middle East conflict, and along comes Obama and describes it not only as a key to combatting extremism but as a danger to “Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state” as well.

In this regard, Obama’s speech signals not only a “re-pivot” from his Asia focus but a complete 360 degree turn, of sorts, back to his May, 2009 speech in Cairo. Obama is more sober today, and less naïve about a “new beginning” with the Muslim world, but after a two-year hiatus he is once again placing the Israeli occupation in the wider context of America’s standing in the region and, by implication, as a festering wound that needs urgent treatment.

This cannot sit well with right wingers who are making every effort to convince themselves and other Israelis that the occupation is a mere sideshow, a nuisance that Israel can “manage” for many years to come.

Full article:
Two years ago, in March 2011, President Barack Obama rebuffed suggestions that there is an “Obama Doctrine” for the Middle East, claiming that states in the region are different from one another and there was no point in applying a singular policy “in a cookie-cutter fashion across the board.” A few months later, his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed Obama’s intention to “pivot” away from the Middle East and toward East Asia and the Pacific.

Both of those declarations of intent were more or less obliterated by Obama’s speech yesterday to the UN General Assembly. Though he didn’t caption it as such, Obama detailed a generalized doctrine that listed “core interests” that would trigger U.S. intervention, including military. And he focused almost exclusively on the Middle East and North Africa, to the extent that in describing it, one can paraphrase the quote made famous by a 17th century Turkish admiral who shied away from an attack on Malta: “China yok.” It doesn’t exist.

The “Obama Doctrine” draws from previous, Middle East-specific policy guidelines laid down by former presidents Eisenhower, Carter and Bush. It defines the prevention of foreign aggression against Middle Eastern countries, the fight against terrorism and the protection of energy sources in the Persian Gulf as “core interests” and adds to them the prevention of the “development or use of weapons of mass destruction,” both chemical and nuclear.

In formulating his “doctrine,” Obama took the threat of military forces a step further than the usual “no options off the table” formula, pledging America’s willingness “to use all elements of our power, including military force.” He said that the United States “will not tolerate” Syrian chemical weapons or Iranian nuclear weapons that are “a threat to our own national security.”

But with this – and the reports that there won’t be any “historic handshake” between Obama and his Iranian counterpart Rohani after all – the good news was over, at least as far as the current Israeli government is concerned.

Obama’s decision to place the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on an equal footing with and adjacent to the Iranian nuclear challenge raised immediate suspicions of a “linkage” between the two issues. Israeli hasbara has devoted decades of efforts to counter descriptions of its confrontation with the Palestinians as the “crux” of the Middle East conflict, and along comes Obama and describes it not only as a key to combatting extremism but as a danger to “Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state” as well.

In this regard, Obama’s speech signals not only a “re-pivot” from his Asia focus but a complete 360 degree turn, of sorts, back to his May, 2009 speech in Cairo. Obama is more sober today, and less naïve about a “new beginning” with the Muslim world, but after a two-year hiatus he is once again placing the Israeli occupation in the wider context of America’s standing in the region and, by implication, as a festering wound that needs urgent treatment.

This cannot sit well with right wingers who are making every effort to convince themselves and other Israelis that the occupation is a mere sideshow, a nuisance that Israel can “manage” for many years to come.
Link→