By: Ali Younes

As President Barack Obama hold talks this week with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s worth examining how Obama’s Middle East policy has shifted to be closer to the Israeli position and why the visiting right wing Israeli prime minister actually rebuked the US president.

Change was president Obama’s theme that propelled him to power to the presidency of the United States. Back then, it meant change for the better, that is, better domestic economic policy, and change from the US unilateralist posture into multilateral one. In the Middle East change did occur, but only for the worst. Obama started off on the right foot by appointing seasoned US diplomat George Mitchell to revive talks between Israel and Palestinians during his first week in office. Almost a year later, the Obama administration finds itself unable to pressure or even convince the right wing Israeli government of halting its building of settlements on occupied Palestinian territories. US secretary of State Hilary Clinton said last week during her trip to the middle East that: "What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements ... is unprecedented," Her statement was a clear departure from the stated US policy objective that demands Israel to completely halt settlement constructions. Mitchell was also unable to convince the Palestinian leadership to ease their demands of complete freeze on Israel settlement building in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.

There are several reasons why the Obama administration seems to be unable to pressure the Israeli government to change its position and stop its illegal settlement buildings.

1: Israel occupies a special place in the American political system, it has supporters across the political divide with some consider unequivocal support of Israeli policies and behavior in the middle east supersedes any other consideration whether that might be violations of international laws or damaging the US standing in the Middle East. A prime example of this is the current US congress bill, HR867, introduced by pro-Israel members of US congress asking president Obama to stand against the report that implicated Israel in war crimes and crimes against humanity during its offensive in Gaza last year.

Furthermore, a significant segment of supporters of Israel come from evangelical Christians and conservatives who support pro-Israel candidates for congress and donate money to Israeli causes. A Gallup poll conducted early this year found that support for Israel among Americans is 59 percent while only 18 percent of Americans surveyed in the poll support the Palestinians. Other polls placed the support for Palestinians between 5-8 percent while Israel continued to have between 44-69 percent of support among American voters.

2: The US strategic interests in the region are not effected by the administration change of position on freezing (then halting and removing) the illegal settlements.

Historically, the United States moved toward ending the conflict when its strategic interests in the region were threatened or when its strategic objectives required some accommodations toward Arab states. The United States for example convened the Madrid Conference in 1991 only when it was necessary for its Gulf War 1990-1991. The US War on Terror saw the US declaring a Road map toward peace in the region which by now have crumbled and fizzled away after the US policy objectives in the region were realized and Palestinians were left to fend for themselves and most Arab States moved squarely in the US camp regardless of the Palestinian situation.

3: Arab states having all but moved on beyond the Palestinian issue are behaving in business as usual fashion. This comes regardless if the Unites States changed its position and moved more toward the Israeli positions that presses for more building of illegal settlements and refuse to stop its policy of demolitions and evictions in Arab East Jerusalem.

Saudi Arabia for example, despite having put forth a comprehensive plan toward ending the conflict with Israel in what has become the Arab Peace Initiative, does not feel obligated to press the United States to accommodate Arab demands or using its global economic power in such way that is favorable toward ending the conflict with Israel.

Moreover, despite the Israeli government behavior in the occupied territories and the continuation of the siege of Gaza, the government of Bahrain, for example is eager to have trade and diplomatic relations with Israel and is pushing in that direction despite opposition from its parliament. Sudan has most recently removed ban on travel to Israel. Jordan and Egypt the two Arab states with diplomatic relations with Israel have come to treat their relations with Israel as a strategic asset regardless of what Israel does with the occupied territories or its behavior with the Palestinians. This was evident during the Israeli offensive in Gaza when the Egyptian and Jordanian governments did not exercise any leverage they have with Israel in order to stop the mayhem.

Netanyahu urged the Palestinians during his visit to the US to start talks without “preconditions” the Palestinians feel that his call is yet another Israeli ploy designed to drag the negotiations forever while continuing the policy of building settlements until there is nothing to negotiate over.

Ali Younes is a Washington-based Middle East analyst. He can be reached at: ali.younes@charter.net