http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/world/middleeast/09biden.html?hp
Vice President Joe Biden recently arrived in Israel to facilitate the first dialogue in over a year between Israeli and Palestinian leaders about the logistics of a two-state solution to the conflict, and to encourage Israel to relinquish its threat of unilateral military action against Iran in protest of its nuclear program in favor of sanctions. The relationship between the two countries is so unproductive that the United States diplomatic efforts will consist of two simultaneous but separate conversations, reflecting an increasingly hostile prospect for resolution. The U.S. intends to dissuade Israel from taking military action against Iran, because Iran remains a volatile threat in the region, most directly to Israel (according to Israel), but the U.S. will assure the country of its support in this issue framed as an international security problem.
This meeting seems to couch realist goals in liberal rhetoric. Top American leadership is going to promote peace in the middle east- this is a great public relations maneuver. Ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is always a popular idea, so the treatment of the visit as a heroic effort to make peace is an acknowledgement of the United States’ (and other liberal countries and international organizations) demand to have their narrative of intrepid humanitarian salvation reinforced. But while this image of peacemaking will probably dominate popular coverage of the conference, the United States is also very concerned about Israeli policy towards Iran, which it views as a direct threat to its own sovereignty and wellbeing, and this interest is likely a hugely motivating factor in this diplomatic exercise, perhaps less publicized for its potential to worry anti-U.S. factions in the area.
Does this kind of diplomatic smokescreen produce any real progress? What does Palestine get out of it? Why does the conflict in Israel matter so much to the U.S. and the American people?
No comments:
Post a Comment