Netanyahu vs. Obama


Written by Tayyab Siddiqui • Special Features • May 2010

Israel's relations with the U.S. are facing the most severe crisis since 1975. The current state of relations are marked with tension and acrimony, which is without precedent. The crisis originated from Israel's insistence that it will continue with the settlements for Jewish immigrants in the occupied lands. U.S. President Obama had, on assumption of presidency, declared peace in the Middle East as a priority. He favored resumption of negotiations, stalled since the death of Yassar Arafat, and regarded settlements as "unhelpful" "and a major impediment" to the creation of a Palestinian state on the occupied lands living in peace with Israel.

In his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu in February, Obama insisted that the settlement activity be frozen to put the talks back on track. Netanyahu, to the utter dismay of Obama, rejected the demand and in a direct rebuff announced construction of another 1600 apartments. The announcement came just as Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Tel Aviv. The episode greatly upset Washington. Secretary of State Clinton called it "an insult" and a "deeply negative signal" for bilateral relations.

The stand-off has far-reaching implications. It has tarnished the image of Obama. He has been criticized for his poor judgment and understanding of "the obstacles to the Israel-Palestinian peace settlement". He himself acknowledged his poor judgment stating - "If we have anticipated some of those political problems on both sides, earlier, we might not have raised expectation as high". However, instead of standing up to the challenge, Obama put pressure on Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas to agree to the resumption of dialogue without "pre-conditions", implying acquiescence to Israel position. To smooth over the friction the idea of "proximity talks" was floated but failed to take off.

The crisis in the Middle East is deepening. While Israel continues with its killing spree in Gaza, the hardliners among the Palestinians are calling for a new "intifada". Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister of Palestinian Authority has proposed that if peace process remains paralyzed, PA will unilaterally announce a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and ask the UN Security Council to recognize the New State. Israel's defiance on the settlement issue has invited a fresh interest and attention of international community. The Quartet - UN, Russia, U.S. and EU - meeting in Moscow, condemned the Israel settlement policy. It set a target of 24 months for a final settlement, demanding an "immediate end to violence and terror", expressing "deep concern over continuing deterioration in Gaza."

UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon paid a visit to occupied Palestine on March 20 to help revive the peace process. He endorsed the Quartet statement and strongly condemned the decision to build, stating that "all settlement activity is illegal anywhere in the occupied territory and this must stop." The flurry of diplomatic activity also woke up Arabs from their deep slumber. An emergency summit of the Arab League was convened in Sirte in Libya. Of the 22 member states, only 13 Arab Leaders attended the summit. UNSG, Prime Minister Ordagan of Turkey and Berlusconi of Italy were invited as special guests. Ordagan ridiculed Israel's claim of Jerusalem as its united capital as "madness." He warned, "If Jerusalem burns, all of Palestine burns and if Palestine burns then all of Middle East will be a fire." The Arab League rejected "talks without a complete settlement freeze" and agreed "on a plan of action that includes political and legal measures to confront Israeli contempt to Judaise Jerusalem." It also pledged to raise $ 500 million to bolster the Palestinian presence there.

Despite all the international outrage, Netanyahu remains defiant and has ignored the Arab League resolution and rejected the EU statement with contempt. Israel's intransigence is borne out of the belief that no U.S. leader will stand up to Israel. The UN is treated in a cavalier fashion and its resolutions condemning or critical of Israel are being invariably vetoed by the U.S. EU has so far failed to play any meaningful role. Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, was appointed as EU Special Envoy to the Middle East last year to help resolve the issue. He has yet to visit the region.

Obama has failed to provide leadership by standing up to Israel, having realized the huge political cost that his proactive diplomacy may entail. He realized that Netanyahu has more influence on the Hill than a U.S. President. Regardless of the complexion of the U.S. administration - Democrat or Republican - the U.S. is committed to "imperishable" relations with Israel. Over the years the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has grown in influence to the extent that the Speaker of the U.S. Congress Pelosi had to acknowledge that "in Congress we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel. No leader can resist or oppose Israel and survive politically." During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, President Reagan advised caution to Prime Minister Begin, stating that some Congressmen were uneasy. Begin's riposte was quick. "Don't worry about the Hill, Ron. I will take care of that."

The most recent illustration of the overwhelming influence that Israel has over U.S. Middle East policies was recounted by Washington Post columnist Gwynne Dyer.

According to Olmert's account of what happened, given in a speech on Jan. 13 in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, "I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said, ‘I don't care: I have to talk to him now'. They got him off the podium, brought him to another room and I spoke to him.

"I told him, ‘You can't vote in favour of this resolution.' He said, ‘Listen, I don't know about it. I didn't see it. I'm not familiar with the phrasing'." So Prime Minister Olmert told President Bush: "I'm familiar with it. You can't vote in favour." Bush did as he was told: "Mr. Bush gave an order to Secretary of State Rice and she did not vote in favour of it - a resolution she cooked up, phrased, organised, and maneuvered for," said Olmert triumphantly. "She was left pretty shamed and abstained on a resolution she arranged." The Security Council passed the resolution 14-0, but the United States, its principal author, abstained.

Obama is convinced that the impasse cannot continue indefinitely as the extremists will take charge if no effective move is made early. Brzezinski, the former national security advisor to President Carter, has urged Obama to make a bold move, a la Anwar Sadat's "journey for peace". Besides being a diplomatic and political triumph for Obama, it would be in the U.S. national interest because the occupation of the West Bank and the enforced isolation of the Gaza strip increases Muslim resentment towards the United States, making it harder for the Obama administration to pursue its diplomatic and military objective in the region."

Anyone familiar with the last 40 years history of Arab-Israel relations and the U.S.' uncritical support to Israel, cannot but be deeply skeptical of the meaningful outcome of such a "bold move."