Like Obama's Afghan surge, Netanyahu's freeze is doomed to fail
The West Bank settlement freeze will not bring peace, the surge in Afghanistan will not bring victory.
By Aluf Benn Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu Barack Obama Israel newsThere is a lot of similarity between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to freeze construction in the settlements and U.S. President Barack Obama's decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
They both came out against their own political bases: Netanyahu against the right and Obama against the left. They both ignored ideology: Netanyahu surrendered "the right of Jews to live anywhere in the Land of Israel," and Obama - peaceful conflict resolution.
They both know their decisions will achieve nothing: The settlement freeze will not bring peace, the surge in Afghanistan will not bring victory. They both also promised in advance that the measures they took were one-offs.
One might be suspicious they are using the same speechwriter, given the similar explanations both gave for their controversial decisions.
The prime minister explained the freeze by "broad national considerations." Obama said beefing up the forces in Afghanistan was a "vital national interest."
For Netanyahu it was "a step that was not easy - a painful step." The American president did not "make this decision lightly."
When the two leaders met in Jerusalem during Obama's presidential campaign, he told Netanyahu that people saw them as strongly ideological, but they were in fact both pragmatists. He was right. Despite all the disagreement and public tension between then, Netanyahu and Obama are alike in terms of their leadership styles.
They are both excellent speakers who have difficulty making decisions. They prefer to wait, hold another round of consultations and another meeting, until they garner support. Internal consensus around their decision is more important to them than the image of a determined leader who acts swiftly.
They work by persuasion, not by force or orders.
Netanyahu called the "forum of seven" cabinet members for more than 10 meetings until the freeze was a matter of general agreement. Obama had some 10 sessions on Afghanistan until all his advisers agreed on a common plan.
According to the New York Times, Obama's Moshe Ya'alon was U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who was not enthusiastic about the troop increase and asked many hard questions. In the end, he too was convinced.
The group dynamics of long meetings, of belonging to the inner circle of those in the know, has an effect even on ideologues like Biden and Benny Begin. It is interesting that Netanyahu had a lot fewer leaks than Obama, who was furious over the reports that emanated from his closed meetings.
In Netanyahu's and Obama's lexicon, the term "national interest" is justification for decisions made contrary to their basic beliefs. Netanyahu buckled to American pressure, out of fear of international isolation. Obama gave in to the pressure from his military, out of fear he would be seen as weak on Al-Qaida and the Taliban.
They both softened the original demands made on them, adding exit strategies.
And like their predecessors - Rabin on the Oslo Accords, Sharon in the disengagement, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam - Netanyahu and Obama are also trying to cover up their initial hesitation by standing up to their adversaries, lest they appear weak.
What can be learned from this? First of all, that Netanyahu and Obama understand each other very well. When the American president looks the Israeli prime minister in the eye, and vice-versa, each knows what the other is going through. Secondly, that they appreciate and respect power more than beliefs and values. Third, that the fundamental laws of politics work even on leaders who were elected with a promise for "change."
This is a basis for evaluating Netanyahu's and Obama's future policies.
But the big question remains: What will Netanyahu do when push comes to shove on going to war against Iran? Will he avoid taking action and explain that the "national interest" requires him to sit tight, or will he lead like Obama - who captivated with his statements about the "good" war in Afghanistan - and embark on a military adventure to make good on his promise "to prevent a second Holocaust?"
The like-minded leader in the Oval Office can be an example in both directions.
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
"The demographic population is wrong. The palestinians will NEVER be a majority!" (A. Zekaria) You are putting me in a most difficult position, having now to decide between taking you at your word, or to believe what two eminent Israelis that I happen to hold in high esteem, have told us: Prof. Yehoshafat Harkabi (1921-1994) and Prof. DellaPergola, (may he live long). "Battle of the numbers: Jewish minority [in all Eretz-Israel] by 2020", Jerusalem Post, Oct 25, 2007. by Professor Sergio Dellapergola, of the Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, the Hebrew U in Jerusalem. Senior Fellow at the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. http://www.jpppi.org.il/ (News & Events -- From the press) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_DellaPergola "We must either have a Palestinian state in our neighborhood, or we will become a Palestinian state." Yehoshafat Harkabi (1921-1994), head of Military Intelligence (1955-1959), then professor and director of the Institute of International Relations and Middle East Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. "Harkabi was the only commander of military intelligence to have had a good command of Arabic, in addition to genuinely professional knowledge of Arab civilization and history, and of Islam." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehoshafat_Harkabi No offence intended, but given your unknown credentials, I think I will stick with them. Surprised? Don't be. After all, we both know since long that you believe in the Almighty eventually intervening in the state of Israel's affairs, and that I don't.
The chances Israel will be finished is nil ! 'Zekaria's obstinate determination to prove that Israel has no future alway amazes me ..." Zeev Will Israel be occupied by the Arab countries ? No ! No country of 10-millions (in few years), can be occupied by any other country for ever ! Will Iran use its nuclear to destroy Israel ? Will peace between Israel & the Palestinians stop Iran from using its nuclear if she wants ? Israel can't be finished,so any other country with 10 Millions population. Remember, those countries that have 10 millions foreigners don't exist ! Israel will NEVER be a minority in the land where Israel is now ! The demographic population is wrong.The palestinians will NEVER be a majority!(Gaza will NEVER be part of a palestine or an Israeli state). The 1.5 millions palestinians in the WB will never be a majority in Israel. We are left only with this conflict. A fact Israel must accept it because Israel can do nothing about it! N.Ireland the same.
"If Israel does not keep the West Bank, the price it will pay is very high ... " (A. Zekaria) In other words, the only way open for Israel to ensure its security and survival is to convince the community of nations -- which has its own private interests, says Zekaria -- that the Jewish state has no other option but to keep forever captive the foreign and stateless population it unwittingly took control of in June '67. Zekaria's obstinate determination to prove that Israel has no future always amazes me, time after time.
let Israel keep the WB and maybe Ghaza and give us Palestinians full citizenship, would you agree?
although both leaders seem complementary in character disposition and backgrounds, governing by democratic consensus is mutually appealing and not being fixated on a particular ideological stance, indicates the similarities they both espouse. Once again, these are learnt traits from past developments and it will be interesting to see what ensues within the new year.
That is certain. Not one doubt.
A freeze on settlement construction may or not bring Peace. But it will, at the very least, diffuse tensions, and score a propaganda victory for Israel. Since the Settlements do not contribute to the security of the State of Israel, then why not do that? What is the risk? Unless, of course, the real agenda is to keep the land and ignore the human rights issues of perpetual "occupation."
...comparing apples with oranges, at least from a "character" point of view.
Haaretz, GREAT ARTICLE! fair analysis of what is to come. keep up the good work.
I hope the Israeli sceptics on Obama are proved wrong in the end. It'll be surprising if a government here actually makes it through one US administration although Obama will probably have to deal with a different PM by the time he heads into re-election campaign.
... if Obama failed this is not the end of the USA. Unlike Netanyah he has only one battle to fight ! If Israel will not keep the West Bank the price Israel will be pay will be very high in both its security & human lives ! All depends on the settlers to make it possible for Israel not to be defeated in this conflict. The only thing that can create a country is people on the ground. The more of them the stronger not only the national case but also the outcomes of the conflict. The palestinians wants the return of the refugees for the same reason. It is not the time to please the community of nations that has its own private interests to protect ! It is the time for any Israeli government to think and very seriously & independently about the future of Israel & the Jews. This not an easy struggle but the only struggle that matters in the history of this nation ! Appeasement never worked in history ! 2-state is the same.
its truly incredible how the addiction to power transcends morality !
Both sides have different ideologies, based on different religious perceptions. So there is no winner or loser, but just the continual game of war and attrition.
right,cause i think their chief advisor is the same?the name is david axel rod?n he is also jewish.