Now that a few days have passed, I’m prepared to make a few comments about the Obama-Netanyahu meeting that took place earlier in the week.
First and foremost, it is astonishing how little media coverage the event had. Ha’aretz had an analysis on this with the worried headline: “Is U.S. media tired of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?” It is true that many other issues are vying for the limited attention of the US media and its public. But the Obama administration has been quite effective at setting the media agenda with Obama himself making important speeches on issues of importance to him at least a couple times a week.
The fact that Obama had only a very brief post-mortem media interview with Netanyahu and left it at that indicates to me that this “lack of interest” is orchestrated by the Obama adminitration. For some (not me) Bibi is seen as an effective communicator. I have no doubt that had the spotlight been allowed to shine on him for even a bit longer, Netanyahu would have done eveything in his power to create the parameters of the story about the US and what its relations should be with the Arabs and Israel. However, apparently Obama has decided that he alone will set the parameters of this story. He will do so in his Cairo speech in early June. I am sure the Obama team worked very hard to make the Netanyahu visit a passing blip in the day-to-day media noise.
There was very little apparent substance in the meeting. Yet several important steps were taken. Most important of all, the option of Israel bombing Iran is off the table. As Yossi Melman notes:
Israel’s military option against Iran has died. The death warrant was issued courtesy of the new U.S. administration led by Barack Obama.
All the administration’s senior officials, from the president to his vice president, Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others are sending strong, clear hints that Israel does not have permission to strike Iran. Yet, given their familiarity with the Israeli client, they have not made do with simple hints and intimations. Washington dispatched the new CIA director, Leon Panetta, to Israel. Panetta made clear to Netanyahu, in so many words, that an Israeli attack would create “big trouble.”
Ha’aretz had another article with the laughable headline “Israel gives Obama until end of year on Iran.” In the words of those famous israeli comedians, Ha’Gashash, “as if.” As if Israel has the power to tell Obama anything about how, what and for how long he can do anything. This sounds more like a pompous pronouncement Bibi might huff out, to cover up his obvious capitulation to the US demand that he forget the iran bombing option. Melman notes:
The supreme tenet of Israeli defense policy states that Jerusalem must not launch any strategic initiative that stands in contradiction, or places in harm’s way, the clear interests of the United States.
What he fails to point out is that this tenet is not a sovereign choice on the part of an “independant” Israel, but is a direct result of Israel’s utter and total dependence on US support for its continued existence. Moreover, in this case, for Israel to get to Iran it would have to fly over Iraq whose air space is controlled by the US air force. Despite the unrivalled abilities of the Israeli air force, such a fly over could not happen without at least tacit US support. If Israel went ahead on this mission against the will of the US, those Israeli planes would be shot down before they reached their targets, and the US would not have to apologize to anyone.
Finally on this point, Obama’s polite statement saying that the progress of his negotiations with Iran will be re-evaluated at the end of the year, only means that Obama was stating the obvious so as not to totally rub Netanyahu’s face in the dirt. He was not “capitulating” in any way to Israel’s urgency about the Iran issue.
By contrast, on the more direct issue of Israel-Palestine, the AP summarized the meeting as follows:
With Netanyahu at his side, Obama said he had told the new Israeli leader during more than two-hours of talks that his government must move quickly to resume peace talks with the Palestinians and had insisted negotiations start from a previous agreement on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
“We have seen progress stalled on this front, and I suggested to the prime minister that he has a historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure,” Obama said. “That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they have previously agreed to.”
Obama told reporters that serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians would be possible only if Netanyahu ordered an end to the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, land that would make up the Palestinian state along with the Gaza Strip.
“There is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements; that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward,” Obama said, referring to past negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.
I can’t recall a more direct statement on the issue by any previous US President: “settlements have to be stopped.” No hemming or hawing or “understanding” of the Israeli position. It is not surprising that a couple of days later, Israel began dismantling “illegal” outposts (as if the others are “legal”). The Israelis relize that Obama, unlike his predecessors, is quite serious on this issue. So unlike Sharon’s half-hearted gestures that were quickly forgotten, this time I am confident that this will be done in a continuous and consistent fashion. Of course Tweeldum Barak is telling the press “we didn’t bow to Obama on West Bank outpost evacuation.” Tweedeldee Netanyahu is whispering to the Israeli press that he is doing this as part of the “price” he is paying to get Obama to be more congenial towards Israel’s viewpoint on Iran. But this is Israelbluf at its best. Obama did not change his position on Iran one millimeter. It is Netanyahu who is beating a hasty retreat.
I am sure that both Tweedeldum and Tweedeldee are hoping that Obama will soon forget about stopping settlements and let things lie. But I don’t believe he will. Over the past few months, Obama has shown that while he is open to pragmatic tactical adjustments in his policies, his strategic goals remain consistent. One can disagree with the details of his tactics, criticize specific decisions, but (at least thus far) Obama has clearly laid out his goals and sticks to them. Pushing Israel and the Palistinians to reach an agreement in our lifetime is clearly one of those goals.
[...] Obama & Netanyahu – A Post-Mortem [...]