The display shouldn’t be so shocking. President Barack Obama was a
professor before a politician, and that scholarly charm and cool helped
get him elected. As if explaining a basic science problem - what goes
up must come down, and vice versa - Obama calmly dismissed the
suggestion that US-Israeli relations have reached a crisis.
"We
and the Israeli people have a special bond that's not going to go away,
but friends are going to disagree sometimes. There is a disagreement in
terms of how we can move this peace process forward."
Say what
they wish, but Israel and America are in a crisis. A crisis isn’t world
ending, it’s a time of trial when an important decision must be made.
The present qualifies, but let’s issue Obama a temporary pass since he
has larger problems at hand. Suppose US-Israeli relations aren’t in a
crisis.
Obama has still created a crisis in the Middle East, one that stems partly from a crisis within himself.
Though
he spoke of being a statesman and took the stage like one, Obama's
behavior that has been anything except statesmanlike in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A professorial nature has done him little
good, hatching theories that exploded during testing. Meanwhile his
detached demeanor has spawned an unhealthy mass of people questioning
his control over US-Israeli policy.
Now his inner pitchman is
failing him. Obama finally ended his silence and entered the dispute
between America and Israel, but with a whimper. The stage had been
cleared, the media ready to project him to six continents, and he chose
to defend America’s bond to Israel’s security again, treating the
Palestinians as a formality.
"I specifically sent Vice President
Biden to Israel to send a message of support and reassurance about my
belief that Israel's security is sacrosanct and that we have a host of
shared interests,” he said.
“The actions that were taken by the
interior minister in Israel weren't helpful to [the peace] process.
Prime Minister Netanyahu acknowledged as much and apologized for it...
What we need right now is both sides to recognize that it is in their
interests to move this peace process forward."
Obama’s target
audience remains Israel, US congress, and Israeli lobbyists, but if
Israel may not even buy his rhetoric why would the Palestinians, Arab
states, the Muslim world, and a growing portion of the international
community?
Just recently King Abdullah of Jordan told Lady
Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, "Jerusalem is a red line
and the world should not be silent about Israel's attempts to get rid
of Jerusalem's Arab residents, Muslims or Christians.” The Saudi King
lurks behind him.
The world outside of Israel doesn’t want to
hear about Israel’s security ad nauseam, doesn’t need to. Obama ended
up saving the worst for last, wasting his position and the world’s time
with a message that hasn’t just been repeated, but at several points
copied nearly word for word - as if America and Israel are following
the same script.
Vice President Joe Biden, while blunting his
previous criticism of Israel’s approval of 1,600 units in East
Jerusalem, spoke many similar phrases. Obama says he sent him so it's
natural for them to say the same things at first. But, like the Gaza
war, Obama’s silence quickly grew to a deafening pitch as various White
House officials deployed to shield him, scold Israel, and still keep
the bond intact. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came after Biden,
followed by David Axelrod, then Clinton again, who publicly started the
climb down.
"Oh, I don't buy that," Clinton told reporters
Tuesday at the State Department, responding to whether US-Israeli
relations are in a crisis. "We have an absolute commitment to Israel's
security. We have a close, unshakable bond between the United States
and Israel and between the American and Israeli people."
One must
wonder why Clinton made these statements if Obama was planning to say
the same a day later. Such a message loses impact when repeatedly
endlessly, but Obama’s words are downright eerie compared to a New York
Times op-ed by Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to America. Oren’s
article is dated March 17th, the same day Obama gave his interview with
Fox News.
Its title: “For Israel and America, a Disagreement, Not
a Crisis.” Its first sentence: “Israel and America enjoy a deep and
multi-layered friendship, but even the closest allies can sometimes
disagree.”
There’s a good chance that Oren wrote his article
before Obama’s interview. The op-ed came out the night of the interview
so parts of it had to be written beforehand, and it gives no indication
of being a response to Obama. Oren doesn’t mention the interview at
all, relying on Biden’s security promise for his conclusion.
Thus if you wanted to hear Obama’s thoughts you just had to read Oren’s!
With
his theories and persuasion failing him, Obama is running out of
options and colliding with other elements in the US political system.
Certainly he’s no military mind, notoriously weak on foreign policy
experience and dominated by rings of military officials. Afghanistan
was calculated on the 2012 election and apparently detached from Israel
and Palestine. By now General David Petraeus’s warning that US policy
with Israel is negatively affecting the Middle East has spread far and
wide.
Petraeus believed that Israel hadn’t gotten the message
yet and so lit a fire under the White House, hoping it too would learn
a lesson.
The last two weeks suggest both were lost during
transmission. Headlines around the world read, “Obama: No crisis in
Israel-US ties.” Those fortunate enough to observe the Jerusalem Post’s
front page could watch the chaos visually manifest as it broke. A
picture of Obama, on the left, rests above that very headline. On the
right a picture of Petraeus, below him, “Arab-Israeli conflict hurts
US.”
The Telegraph reported, “Mr. Obama himself is said to have
grown increasingly convinced that further paralysis in the Middle East
peace process could risk the lives of US soldiers overseas,” but his
actions bear no indication of that belief.
With his other avenues
sealing shut Obama has reverted to his politician ways. Whether good or
bad for the Israeli government, the White House is reportedly trying to
manipulate the Knesset’s makeup. According to the Atlantic Monthly’s
Jeremy Goldberg, the White House has decided that the peace process is
impossible with Netanyahu’s current right-wing coalition and is trying
to reinstall Kadima.
Many Israelis are also fed up with their
government, but US meddling won’t be a popular solution. Unfortunately
Obama's inner politician guided him to his present troubles and
secretive politics are likely to dig America's hole deeper. Netanyahu
is too savvy for Obama, most Israeli politicians are.
According
to Tariq Alhomayed, editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat, “the White
House believed that Netanyahu's government was too weak to stand up to
Washington's pressure, but the surprise – according to my source – is
that it was Obama who weakened. The source added that the smartest
thing that Netanyahu did was to play the waiting game while domestic
problems weakened Obama.”
“In addition to this, a source familiar
with Washington told me that the reason for his surprise was that he
received this rebuke from Hillary Clinton, rather than Obama. This is
surprising because Hillary Clinton is much appreciated in Israel right
now, in contrast to Obama. The Israeli dislike of Obama is no secret,
and there was great expectation during the first meeting between Obama
and Netanyahu at the White House in May 2009. My sources told me that
following this meeting Netanyahu believed that he could circumvent
Obama through the use of Israel's friends in the Senate.”
So the
situation stands. Until Obama fulfills his personal goal of becoming a
statesman, one who makes hard decisions and sacrifices, the White House
is unlikely to established any sort of control on Netanyahu. The peace
process as the world knows it won't be moving far forward until America
reanalyzes the absoluteness of its relationship with Israel and adopts
an iron stand on Palestine.
It's not like Kadima will divide Jerusalem either.
King
Abdullah was only a part of Lady Ashton’s itinerary; the EU’s High
Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy had
also met with PA President Mahmoud Abbas. According to senior
negotiation Saeb Erekat, Abbas gave her a letter demanding the EU
intervene and pressure Israel into a full settlement freeze, West Bank
and Jerusalem. Erekat reaffirmed that any negotiations, indirect or
face to face, are impossible unless Israel reverses its last settlement
approval and halts all construction.
Israel has given every sign of continuing construction, and by the look of it, military action in Gaza isn't far off.
“It
is time for tough decisions in the Security Council and in Europe,”
someone once said. “It is time for a new Churchill policy, not a
Chamberlain policy – and that is our expectation.”
These are the
words of another of Ashton’s audience. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman told her a lot of things, but none so true as his demand for
real statesmanship in the Middle East.
The Palestine Chronicle