Netanyahu and Obama don't need love to advance peace
Just days before Netanyahu's trip to Washington, and it's still not clear if he's going to meet the president.
By Aluf Benn Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu Barack Obama Israel newsImmediately after the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem this Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will take off on his third trip to the U.S. since his return to power.
Netanyahu is going to participate in the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly conference in Washington D.C., but that is not what makes his journey interesting:
Two days before his departure Netanyahu has yet to schedule a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama.
Both leaders will be speaking at the conference, but if nothing changes over the weekend, their paths will not cross.
Is this a diplomatic insult? American discontent with Israel? Or perhaps Obama simply dislikes Netanyahu? Nonsense, says the Prime Minister's Office.
The prime minister has not scheduled a meeting with the president simply because of protocol constraints, says the PMO; the two could not agree on a location: Would Netanyahu receive an invitation to the White House, or would he meet Obama at the conference? Would he be received as an official guest, as prime minister, or as a representative of the Jewish community coming to lobby the president?
Former prime minister Ariel Sharon also visited the American Jewish community ahead of the disengagement from Gaza, and did not meet with then-U.S. President George Bush, the PMO added.
The two leaders met several weeks prior to that and were not inclined to schedule another meeting at such close proximity to the one before. Besides, the lower ranking officials can be left to talk shop, such as Sharon's Dov Weisglas and Netanyahu's Uzi Arad.
Not a bad explanation, but there are countable differences between the two prime ministers. Before his "Jewish" journey, Sharon visited the Bush ranch in Texas, and his joint Range Rover ride with the president through his herds and groves signified the peak of their close relationship.
Netanyahu's last meeting with Obama at the UN General Assembly in New York expressed everything but a close relationship.
The president rebuked both the prime minister and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, for dragging out the renewal of peace negotiations, and warned them that his patience is running low.
One meeting with the president, or just a semi-meeting, and Netanyahu managed to break an ancient convention in Israeli politics.
It was once believed here that the Israeli public loves nothing more than the demonstration of a close and personal relationship with America and that there is nothing worse for a prime minster than a conflict with the White House.
Former premier Yitzhak Shamir was removed from power after his brawl with George Bush, Sr., Netanyahu struggled to complete his previous cadency due to his alienation from Bill Clinton, and now there's a revolution: Obama is cold and distant, and Netanyahu is peaking in the polls.
After seven months in power, Netanyahu's popularity resembles that of Sharon's, the coalition is calm, the borders are quiet, and the economy is on the rise.
His first foreign policy speech at Bar Ilan University and his support of a two state solution have even placed Netanyahu in the center. He may have burned in his first round, but the new Netanyahu avoids entering conflicts with the "elites" and power hubs.
He gave in to the IDF's demands not to investigate Operation Cast Lead and he is stalling on the decision of splitting the position of the attorney general - it's not a pressing issue.
Last week he scored himself an important diplomatic victory regarding peace negotiations: The U.S. government backed down from its hopes for quick and immediate talks with the Palestinians, and are now talking about "baby steps" that will lead to talks in the future.
Several weeks ago, Washington voiced hope for the establishment of a Palestinian state within the next two years. Now, they are accepting the Israeli attitude that there is no rush for such an entity.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton met Netanyahu last Saturday in Jerusalem, and publicly praised his "unprecedented" offer to moderate the settlement construction.
The Israelis present at the meeting were impressed with her sharpness and familiarity with the details, while the Arab world was furious with her response. How is it possible, they asked, that the U.S. government dropped its prior demand for a complete and unilateral freeze of all Israeli settlement building?
It is unclear whether Clinton intended to praise Netanyahu, or just made a public slip of the tongue. Nevertheless the event cost her a week of explanations with her Arab counterparts, while Jerusalem celebrated the reversal of positions: Netanyahu desires - he's practically begging - to renew the peace talks.
He explained to the Americans that he is ready politically to advance a peace treaty with the Palestinians and that he believes in his ability to achieve a treaty, while Abbas rejects the talks and won't let go of his preconditions.
Top Israeli officials carefully estimate that the talks will be delayed to Obama's second cadency. America has an economic crisis on its hands, terrible unemployment rates, terror in Pakistan, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The U.S. lacks the energy and ability to advance an Israeli-Palestinian accord right now, let alone getting it signed. They can make some effort, perhaps even return to the deliberating table, with the knowledge that nothing will come of it. And the line with Syria is completely blocked, as the Americans are extremely disappointed with Assad.
Those who fear Israel's future in face of a status quo stasis in the West Bank, and hope for a diplomatic agreement on territorial division that will save Zionism from the demographic threat, will view the current situation as a disaster.
But to his supporters, Netanyahu emerged from it like a wizard: He's keeping both the West Bank and the coalition, calming down the dispute with the Americans and portraying the Palestinians as the insubordinate party. What more can you ask from a rightist government?
What's wrong? Israeli officials notice two mistakes made by the Obama administration. The first a miscalculation that American pressure would push Netanyahu out of power, or at least force him to alter the coalition. But instead Netanyahu has only gotten stronger.
The second mistake was the U.S.' stated demand to freeze the settlements without previously checking the feasibility of such a requirement.
In Jerusalem, officials say U.S. special Middle East envoy George Mitchell enticed the Palestinians to bind themselves to this unreasonable requirement - a complete settlement freeze as a prerequisite for negotiations - and instead of advancing the talks, he lodged a stick in their wheel.
Netanyahu insisted on maintaining the understandings that his predecessors, Sharon and Ehud Olmert, reached with the Bush administration on supervised settlement construction.
The Obama administration was reticent but eventually accepted the Israeli position, while complaining about the illegitimacy of settlements.
From Israel, Obama looks to be inexperienced in diplomacy, but he also comes across as an involved leader who understands politics and power relations.
His government understands that Netanyahu is currently strong and cannot be overtaken. Jerusalem attributes the U.S. change of attitude regarding Israel to Denis Ross, who recently joined the White House staff and is indispensable to every Middle East debate.
Mitchell, who is less friendly toward Israel, and has so far failed at restarting the negotiations, is losing his power. Obama is dwindling in the polls and is losing the support of the American Jewish community, while their support of Israel is at a historical peak.
America is not just the president, Netanyahu reminds his advisers, but a vast country with several power cores.
This does not mean that Obama and his advisers have suddenly fallen head over heals in love with Netanyahu.
The White House is cultivating the "alternative" pro-Israel lobby J Street, which is supposed to strengthen Obama's support amongst the Jewish communities as opposed to the traditional Jewish lobbies identified with Netanyahu.
Obama sent his national security adviser, Jim Jones, to the J Street conference last week, while Israel refused to send its own ambassador, Michael Oren.
This is a clear sign that relations may not be as sweet as can be, but associates of Netanyahu say all is not lost.
Netanyahu and Obama may not become the best of friends and lovers, but the president can and must see our prime minister as a partner.
Together, they can accomplish big things - even without the love. And if the two do end up meeting in Washington next week, they will have the chance to start over on a fresh new page.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
"As long as Israel knows it will continue to get military aid and diplomatic cover from the U.S. and favorable trade treatment from the EU he has no incentive to change." The voices of a few agonizing Israeli bleeding-hearts are totally ineffective...
"Not that I`m hopeful, but they could talk about the realistic possibility of Palestinian elections without a guarantee of who might win." - Mark of Lewiston The election of Abbas was not sufficient to get the much more moderate Olmert government to negotiate in good faith. "Alternatively, they might discuss who might be appointed as Israeli viceroy once the current PA government expires, if no elections are going to be allowed, especially in Jerusalem or Gaza." - Mark of Lewiston No Palestinian may be trusted no matter how dedicated to peace he might be. The Israel of our youth no longer exists. The israel of today thinks that Begin was a leftist for making peace with Egypt. It believes that there is must be no compromise with Arabs. The shift to the extreme right in Israel is not something we may ignore. Israel today would not allow the most obeisant 'viceroy'. It will accept nothing other than the evacuation of Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem - and yes, Israel - by Arabs.
Not that I'm hopeful, but they could talk about the realistic possibility of Palestinian elections without a guarantee of who might win. Alternatively, they might discuss who might be appointed as Israeli viceroy once the current PA government expires, if no elections are going to be allowed, especially in Jerusalem or Gaza.
For a change, Obama needs to follow the approach that worked well in the Bosnia conflict. Americans wanted Serbians to talk to Bosnians so they started arming the Croats. If in this conflict Serbian=Israelis, Bosnians=Palestinians, the us just need to identify who will act as the Croats.
... but have no idea how that would 'advance peace'...
Israelis have clearly demonstrated that they are not willing to give up land for peace. According to Aluf Benn, Netanyahu's new negotiating position will be to hang on to Area 'C" the 60% of the West Bank that is under Israeli security and administrative Control. Thus we have a whole new ballgame. We're no longer talking about 3% to 7% of the West Bank being retained by Israel with some compensating land swaps. Clearly, Bibi is pushing for a permanent solution in which Palestinians have limited autonomy in scattered cantons. This has basically always been the Israeli position, except possibly at Taba (which Barak pulled out of as soon as it became clear Sharon had beat him) und under Olmert's proposal (which he lacked the legitimacy to pull off). As long as Israel knows it will continue to get military aid and diplomatic cover from the U.S. and favorable trade treatment from the EU he has no incentive to change.
If there were to be a purpose to Obama and Netanyahu to meet, it might concern whether or not credible elections will occur in the Palestinian authority, who will be allowed to run and who will be allowed to vote and whether or not it would make the PA credible or not. They might also discuss winding down the PA and just the appointment of an Israeli viceroy. This would require Israel to take back all governance of the occupied territories. It would eliminate the fiction of the possibility of two states, since independence and sovereignty seem out of the question for Likud and the ruling coalition. None of this is likely to be embraced by the Palestinian public. But their preferences seem immaterial to the Israeli politicians.
Israel is sleepwalking to a one state solution. It may celebrate the present impasse, the loss of Abu Mazen as a partner, and Obama's mounting impatience, but the result will be a disaster for Israel. Twenty years from now, welcome to an Arab majority. Even now, events strengthen Hamas, as my daily paper reports from Israel. And who will be in the army? The masses who are not even educated to work? Wake up and stop celebrating.
They would, however, have to be interested enough in advancing peace to try. Netanyahu will not stop building and Obama won't stop groveling. Thus neither is actually interested in advancing peace.
Obama caved into their demands, he cares less for the desires of the Palestinian people than he does for his "potential" supporters in Tel Aviv. Intifada 3 coming soon...
I understand you still have hope. The 'Road Map' ended at a security fence. The Obama Peace Initiative is up on blocks with the wheels off and contributed to some Settlers so they can continue building. The engine was given to Bibi to repair a bulldozer. Hillary took the steering wheel and lost it. The end of the Obama Peace initiative came when he handed Bibi Netanyahu the keys and title.
Mike is right. The main issue is property. The easiest way out is to let Palesinians, especially Americans of Palestinian descent, sue in American courts for property and damages incurred for loss of their property in Israel.
What's interesting about USA diplomatic appointments in the Middle East and Israel/Palestine in particular. The US keeps appointing Jews most of the time in top positions. That's why USA foreign policy in the Middle East is a mess, and costly to the American taxpayer. Why don't they appoint Christian or Moslem Americans of Palestinian descent ? The United States does not need skewed pro-Israeli feedback from Israel/Palestine. The mainstream press in the USA is doing it almost continuously.
And it's Obama who'll want the photo op.
Benn says Natenyahu is a "partner" for peace. Sadly, it is not true. He may have uttered the holy words "two-states," but it is obvious to everyone he doesn't believe in two-states and is committed to thwarting actions that might lead to that outcome. Obama doesn't need a partner like Bibi or, for that matter, like Abbas. He either needs to forget about the problem and walk away...letting the parties stew in their own misery or he must present a concrete proposal to solve the problem and arm-twist the parties into agreement. America has too many problems to mess around with the likes of Bibi and Abbas.
Oslo I, Oslo II, Taba, Wye, Zinni, Mitchell I, Tenet, Roadmap, Annapolis, Sharm, Mitchell II , Mitchell III, Camp David, and now Obama and Hillary Clinton. Did I miss something? Diplomats have been trying to solve the middle east problem diplomatically for 60 years and it cannot be done. Did you ever hear that to keep doing something the same way and expecting different results is insane? The fact is the middle east problem is a LEGAL problem. The United Nations took property from Palestinian Arabs in order to create a safe haven for persecuted Jews and they never paid just compensation to the Palestinian Arabs for their losses. It`s no wonder that Arabs harbor resentment. You know what you get when you take someone`s property for no money? 60 years of war. I don`t want to hear that Arabs left voluntarily. I leave my property voluntarily all the time. In doing so my property rights are not relinquished. The UN needs to set up a Middle East Compensation Commission where people, Jews too, who lost property due to Israel`s creation can come, present claims and get justly compensated in exchange for a release of claims.
How many of Bibi's supporters are Jewish supremacists who support people like Feiglin? This is really discouraging. Even Turks talk about keeping strong ties with the USA; while Bibi cannot even meet and talk with Obama. Obama has more in common with J Street which is made of the younger generation, I think. What is happening to Israel? Mention Jewish prejudice and the Feiglin supporters come out of the woodwork.
Israel is strategically irrelavant in the future of US. Obama will let the relations with Netanyahu slide, even as he keeps good relations with US Jews.
It allows Obama to not offend the jewish lobby (how can they be mad at him for accepting Netanyahu's positions?) - and at the same time lowers the bar on what people expect from his Iran negotiations.
Netanyahu is keeping himself in power by sucking up to the Israeli right. When the bill arrives from Tehran, he will have no idea what to do.
The reality is, we're seeing example 101 why President Obama has such a low rating among Israelis. If he needs to be pushed, cajoled, and incentivised to meet with the elected leader of an allied state, then the image he is projecting, is one that says, "I don't care about your national needs." It's a view, that when juxtaposed against the bowing and scraping the President has done when meeting with Arab and Muslim officials presents an image of bias and potential untrustworthiness with the political leadership in Washington. Worse, it shows an image of inconsistency. Today the President likes Israel, tomorrow he doesn't. Today he can work with its Prime Minister, tomorrow he's going to have a personal hissy fit about him. While there may be a rhyme or reason for President Obama's actions, it has a consequence in terms of trustworthiness and subequently, willingness by Israelis to have the confidence and trust in his policies and actions.