The US's clear stance on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of the two-state solution is not the only point of divergence between Barack Obama's administration and Benjamin Netanyahu's government. Broader than such a disagreement, and in fact strengthening it, is the other point of divergence, that regarding the manner of resolving the nuclear crisis with Iran. It is this divergence that is now being used by neo-extremists in Israel, the likes of Foreign Minister Lieberman, to blackmail Obama on the issue of a solution with the Palestinians. In such people's opinion, what they consider to be "concessions" made by Israel in the past - the latest being the withdrawal from Gaza - have resulted in encouraging Palestinian extremism at the expense of moderate factions, rather than the opposite. In their view, this confirms that Iran is the main force behind such extremism, and that confronting it should have priority, ahead of exerting pressure on Israel. Obama's predicament here is as follows: how will he manage to bring together a policy of flexibility with Tehran, one that attempts to lure it with diplomacy and politics into retracting its nuclear program and becoming open to more transparency, and a stringent policy with Israel, to make it accept the "goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security", as the US President stated in his recent speech to the Turkish parliament? If the price required to obtain concessions from Israel in the Palestinian issue is to coordinate with it or to follow its policy in the Iranian issue, then can the Obama Administration bear the cost of such a policy in the region, especially if it is to clear the path for a potential Israeli strike against Iran, with the US providing cover or turning a blind eye, and thus to eliminate any hope of holding Palestinian-Israeli negotiations? There are certainly broad movements on the US scene that now encourage the new administration to take a stringent stance on Netanyahu and his government. Among such movements are Jewish groups, politically at the left of the AIPAC lobbying group, that consider Israel's long-term interest to lie in resolving the conflict based on a permanent settlement that would be accepted by both parties. There are also voices within Israel itself that call for such stringency. One such example is the editor-in-chief of the Haaretz newspaper David Landau who, upon meeting last September with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, told her that the US should "rape" Israel in order to impose the solution upon it. If such had been the stance of this segment of Israelis under Olmert and Livni, we can only imagine the stance they would take after the statements given by Lieberman before US envoy George Mitchell about Israel refusing to offer "further concessions". Moreover, Obama benefits from a general Arab concern and European desire to make use of his new image in order to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. Yet one must not make the mistake of being overly optimistic. Indeed, opportunities about which it was said that they needed to be made use of in the past are too numerous to be counted, and the means of putting pressure on Israel held by US administrations have always been there - but have always needed someone to exercise them. From cutting aid (three billion dollars a year) or threatening to do so, to refraining from using veto power at the Security Council against decisions that do not agree with Israeli interests, reducing the level of strategic cooperation between the two countries - especially at the military level, or placing restrictions on the low-interest loans obtained by Israel from US banks - most of which goes to the expansion of settlements. It is a long list of steps that the Obama Administration could resort to if it genuinely sought to change the direction of the Israeli government's policy to make it accept the settlement it seeks, one which would be consistent with the text of the Arab Peace Initiative, the Road Map and the decisions reached at the Annapolis Conference. But does the climate prevailing in the region allow Obama to exercise such pressures, even if that were his intention? Doubtless Iran and its allies taking the initiative of facilitating such a task would add a powerful means of pressure to those already held by US President. It is true that Israel has enough influence inside the United States to paralyze any initiative by the President, as it has proved in the past. However, the wide base of support enjoyed by Obama, including among Jewish Americans, should give him enough room to move, provided that other crises in the region do not hinder such movement. Al-Hayat 19/04/2009
