Palestinians

As he noted, “We want to ensure that there is a climate in which we can, I hope at some time, establish the circumstances where we can start to restore a sense of security for Israelis and Palestinians equally, which is obviously badly missing.”

The Americans continue to be by far the most potent diplomatic force capable of swaying the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, but they are severely constrained.

One is that US foreign policy no longer places as much emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and military occupation as it formerly did.

Another is the influence of domestic US opinion, which exerts pressure on both Democratic and Republican administrations due to Congressmen’s ability to adopt firm stances on the combat and occupation.

But even so, the US has traditionally been the peacemaker and a “ironclad” ally of Israel, and it pours money into both the Palestinians and Israel through the UN, including significant amounts of military aid to Israel.

Regarding Benjamin Netanyahu, it appears that the Americans are taking him at his word that he is the only one in complete control of his coalition and its far-right, ultranationalist ministers.

However, it’s already obvious that the US is extremely concerned about the potential for these numbers to make things considerably worse. The Americans deemed anything that threatened the delicate status quo arrangements at that sensitive holy site as “unacceptable” after National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir used his first public appearance in office in January to walk around Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy site surrounded by security guards.

In the meantime, there was discussion prior to his trip as to whether Mr. Blinken would address US concerns regarding the coalition’s contentious reforms for the legal system, which would grant the government the authority to override the courts if they overturn its laws.

It followed Mr. Blinken’s statement that the US-Israel alliance transcended “any one American or Israeli government” in a subtly devastating moment.

He described the two nations’ “shared interests and in shared values,” outlining them as “core democratic principles and institutions… respect for human rights, the equal administration of justice for all, the equal rights of minority groups, the rule of law, free press, and a robust civil society,” as he stood next to the Israeli prime minister.

It was a remarkable depiction that served as the US’s list of demands for the Israeli leader in order to uphold democracy. Before this, maybe in preparation, Mr. Netanyahu gave him the assurance that Israel will “remain” a powerful democracy, much like America.

It was revealed that the US government considered Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions as nothing less than a “regime revolution” that would leave Israel “an illiberal and non-democratic country in its wake,” according to a seasoned Washington correspondent for the Israeli weekly Yediot Ahronoth.

Many Israeli headlines were dominated by Mr. Blinken’s remarks. You decided to teach our prime minister a lesson in democracy, one irate far-right Israeli minister retorted, asking him to cease interfering.

Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, has been urged by others in Ramallah not to carry out his threat to end security coordination with Israel, a holdover from the historic Oslo peace talks of the 1990s.

When the Israeli army conducts attacks on Palestinian cities, the system observes PA security personnel withdrawing. Many ordinary Palestinians find it to be very unpopular, and Mr. Abbas has already vowed to abandon it numerous times but has only sometimes come near to doing so. On Monday, it appeared as though he was caving in, allegedly saying that it was “just partially suspended.”

Later, Mr. Blinken stated that his team will remain in place to continue working on “concrete initiatives” that both sides could now attempt to take to minimise the level of violence. When pressed for more information, he refused. Although the visit began with a “pivotal moment,” it ended with no understanding on how to address it.
As he noted, “We want to ensure that there is a climate in which we can, I hope at some time, establish the circumstances where we can start to restore a sense of security for Israelis and Palestinians equally, which is obviously badly missing.”

The Americans continue to be by far the most potent diplomatic force capable of swaying the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, but they are severely constrained.

One is that US foreign policy no longer places as much emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and military occupation as it formerly did.

Another is the influence of domestic US opinion, which exerts pressure on both Democratic and Republican administrations due to Congressmen’s ability to adopt firm stances on the combat and occupation.

But even so, the US has traditionally been the peacemaker and a “ironclad” ally of Israel, and it pours money into both the Palestinians and Israel through the UN, including significant amounts of military aid to Israel.

Regarding Benjamin Netanyahu, it appears that the Americans are taking him at his word that he is the only one in complete control of his coalition and its far-right, ultranationalist ministers.

However, it’s already obvious that the US is extremely concerned about the potential for these numbers to make things considerably worse. The Americans deemed anything that threatened the delicate status quo arrangements at that sensitive holy site as “unacceptable” after National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir used his first public appearance in office in January to walk around Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy site surrounded by security guards.

In the meantime, there was discussion prior to his trip as to whether Mr. Blinken would address US concerns regarding the coalition’s contentious reforms for the legal system, which would grant the government the authority to override the courts if they overturn its laws.

It followed Mr. Blinken’s statement that the US-Israel alliance transcended “any one American or Israeli government” in a subtly devastating moment.

He described the two nations’ “shared interests and in shared values,” outlining them as “core democratic principles and institutions… respect for human rights, the equal administration of justice for all, the equal rights of minority groups, the rule of law, free press, and a robust civil society,” as he stood next to the Israeli prime minister.

It was a remarkable depiction that served as the US’s list of demands for the Israeli leader in order to uphold democracy. Before this, maybe in preparation, Mr. Netanyahu gave him the assurance that Israel will “remain” a powerful democracy, much like America.

It was revealed that the US government considered Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions as nothing less than a “regime revolution” that would leave Israel “an illiberal and non-democratic country in its wake,” according to a seasoned Washington correspondent for the Israeli weekly Yediot Ahronoth.

Many Israeli headlines were dominated by Mr. Blinken’s remarks. You decided to teach our prime minister a lesson in democracy, one irate far-right Israeli minister retorted, asking him to cease interfering.

Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, has been urged by others in Ramallah not to carry out his threat to end security coordination with Israel, a holdover from the historic Oslo peace talks of the 1990s.

When the Israeli army conducts attacks on Palestinian cities, the system observes PA security personnel withdrawing. Many ordinary Palestinians find it to be very unpopular, and Mr. Abbas has already vowed to abandon it numerous times but has only sometimes come near to doing so. On Monday, it appeared as though he was caving in, allegedly saying that it was “just partially suspended.”

Later, Mr. Blinken stated that his team will remain in place to continue working on “concrete initiatives” that both sides could now attempt to take to minimise the level of violence. When pressed for more information, he refused. Although the visit began with a “pivotal moment,” it ended with no understanding on how to address it.