Middle East Policy has been one of the world’s most cited publications on the region since its inception in 1982, and our Breaking Analysis series makes high-quality, diverse analysis available to a broader audience.
James Zogby | Arab American Institute
Everyone made nice, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington last week. It was make up time. The Administration sought to demonstrate that despite, what the President referred to as their "minor difference" over the Iran deal, there were no remaining hard feelings. Three-quarters of the Congress welcomed Netanyahu with a letter denouncing Palestinian violence and incitement. And the Israeli PM was fawned over during an appearance at a liberal think-tank.
Before, during, and after the visit, official statements and press coverage largely focused on two themes: Israel’s security needs in the wake of the P5+1 Agreement with Iran; and how, despite Netanyahu’s testy relationship with President Obama, the US-Israel relationship remains as strong as ever. When Palestinians were discussed at all, it was most often as perpetrators of incitement and violence or as a problem to be solved so that Israel could live in peace.
President Obama did speak of the need to "lower the temperature between Israelis and Palestinians" and his concern "that legitimate Palestinian aspirations are met through a political process". For his part, Netanyahu stated that he remained "committed to a vision of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state". But in the overall scheme of things, the President’s call to "lower the temperature" and Netanyahu’s response that he was open to "discussing…practical ways…[to] lower the tension", appeared to be "throw away" lines—oft repeated, but never implemented.
What was missing was any forthright acknowledgment of the suffering of Palestinians under a harsh occupation that has abused and humiliated them, denied their fundamental rights, and sucked the very life out of their hopes for the future. There was nothing new here, since the failure to address these realities has long characterized US policy discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
From the earliest days of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine, the West has portrayed the resultant conflict in a simplistic equation—Jewish humanity confronting the Arab problem—real people versus an abstraction. Even when Palestinian national rights were finally recognized, the policy discussion shifted only slightly with the call for a Palestinian state presented as necessary, not to free Palestinians from the nightmare of Israeli rule, but to ensure that Israel would remain a "Jewish state".
Middle East Policy has been one of the world’s most cited publications on the region since its inception in 1982, and our Breaking Analysis series makes high-quality, diverse analysis available to a broader audience.
Partner with the Council
We appreciate any support towards the Middle East Policy Council to help educate Americans on the political, economic and cultural issues that affect U.S. interests in the Middle East.
The Middle East Policy Council's senior leadership and board of directors can offer unique insights into the complex issues facing U.S. policy making in the Middle East.
James Zogby | Arab American Institute
Everyone made nice, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Washington last week. It was make up time. The Administration sought to demonstrate that despite, what the President referred to as their "minor difference" over the Iran deal, there were no remaining hard feelings. Three-quarters of the Congress welcomed Netanyahu with a letter denouncing Palestinian violence and incitement. And the Israeli PM was fawned over during an appearance at a liberal think-tank.
Before, during, and after the visit, official statements and press coverage largely focused on two themes: Israel’s security needs in the wake of the P5+1 Agreement with Iran; and how, despite Netanyahu’s testy relationship with President Obama, the US-Israel relationship remains as strong as ever. When Palestinians were discussed at all, it was most often as perpetrators of incitement and violence or as a problem to be solved so that Israel could live in peace.
President Obama did speak of the need to "lower the temperature between Israelis and Palestinians" and his concern "that legitimate Palestinian aspirations are met through a political process". For his part, Netanyahu stated that he remained "committed to a vision of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state". But in the overall scheme of things, the President’s call to "lower the temperature" and Netanyahu’s response that he was open to "discussing…practical ways…[to] lower the tension", appeared to be "throw away" lines—oft repeated, but never implemented.
What was missing was any forthright acknowledgment of the suffering of Palestinians under a harsh occupation that has abused and humiliated them, denied their fundamental rights, and sucked the very life out of their hopes for the future. There was nothing new here, since the failure to address these realities has long characterized US policy discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
From the earliest days of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine, the West has portrayed the resultant conflict in a simplistic equation—Jewish humanity confronting the Arab problem—real people versus an abstraction. Even when Palestinian national rights were finally recognized, the policy discussion shifted only slightly with the call for a Palestinian state presented as necessary, not to free Palestinians from the nightmare of Israeli rule, but to ensure that Israel would remain a "Jewish state".
> Keep Reading at the Arab American Institute