T. Belman. Al Monitor titled this article, Netanyahu, “the great pretender”.The author meant to trash Bibi. The more he did it , the more I liked Bibi.
US-Israel relations remain in crisis. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting in the Oval Office on Nov. 9 seemed like an encounter of a divorced couple discussing their common future. The complete and mutual mistrust turned their conversation into two almost unrelated monologues. Indeed, little was achieved at this summit, except for the expected talks on the security aid package for Israel.
The Nov. 9 meeting between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu created a facade of improved bilateral relations, but did little to actually repair the damage done to US-Israel ties.
A senior State Department source told Al-Monitor, on the condition of anonymity, that the administration was not disappointed with the meeting, as the president and the secretary of state had no expectations from the prime minister to begin with. “The intervention of Netanyahu in the Iran debate in favor of the Republicans has left irreparable scars regarding the perception here of the prime minister,” he said. The official admitted that prior to the meeting it had been decided to create a facade of mending fences with Israel. Yet the distinction made beforehand by the president, even publicly, of full support for Israel’s security on the one hand and broad disagreement on regional policy issues on the other was only strengthened by the meeting. He admitted that bilateral relations remain strained.
Netanyahu, according to this source, made a strong case about Israel being the victim of an orchestrated terror offensive by regional fundamentalist movements and asked the United States to stand by Israel. The president has indeed reiterated in principle Israel’s right to self-defense. But the analysis of the administration underscores the diplomatic stalemate on the Palestinian issue, not linking it to the Islamic State context.
Jerusalem views this meeting rather similarly. A confidant close to Netanyahu told Al-Monitor that, given the mutual suspicions between the two leaders, the meeting was the best Netanyahu could have expected. Yet, according to this source, Netanyahu did not change his views on the Iran deal, on the Palestinian issue or, for that matter, his critical opinion of Obama. Netanyahu is convinced that Obama does not understand the Arab world, that he is too weak in reacting to Arab terror and that he is naive in believing that diplomacy could rectify the situation in Syria and the West Bank. The source reaffirmed that Netanyahu has made no concessions on any of the issues, except for lip service on the two-state solution. One can therefore conclude that the meeting did not heal the damaged Washington-Jerusalem relationship, except for the verbal affirmation of the long-standing alliance.
Several factors lead to the persistent crisis in the US-Israeli relationship. The first of them is the personal mistrust between the two leaders, which is apparently irreparable. Personal chemistry between the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel is critical for a more intimate coordination of security and peace policies. Now, such coordination takes place only on the technocratic level.
Another factor is the diplomatic stalemate. Netanyahu declared before the Israeli March 17 elections that a Palestinian state will not be established during his tenure as prime minister and, with this, he made sure that it will not happen under Obama’s presidency either. Acceptance by the United States of a diplomatic stalemate on a two-state solution, which now will last well into the first term of the next American presidency, is a sure prescription for growing Palestinian frustration leading to violence and the strengthening of Hamas.
In this respect, the Iran deal suddenly is no longer an issue for Netanyahu. Currently, he is more focused on preventing pressure on a two-state solution. Understandings were reached at the Washington summit on US-Israeli cooperation on the monitoring of the Iranian implementation of the deal. Yet given the lack of a viable Palestinian-Israeli peace process, Israel remains outside any of the American-led collective diplomacy efforts, mainly in relation to Iran and Syria.
The ongoing bilateral crisis is also linked to Netanyahu’s failure to enlist American diplomatic objections to the EU decision to label goods produced in Israeli settlements. State Department spokesman Mark Toner declared Nov. 12 that the United States does not consider the EU measure to be a boycott and that the United States believes that the “settlements are illegitimate.” This contrasts with past US pressure on the EU to refrain from policies perceived in Jerusalem as hostile.
A final factor of this crisis is the ideological gap. More than the lack of personal trust, or even the deep policy differences, the fundamental schism between Obama and Netanyahu is ideological. The American president is a great believer in collective diplomacy and coalition building for conflict resolution, including dealing with Syria in the aftermath of the Paris attack on Nov.13. The Israeli prime minister believes in the use of forceful unilateral measures as a first resort. Obama believes in equality between states; Netanyahu does not. This places Israel outside the international consensus on collective diplomacy on military action and the underlying premises and values for conflict resolution in a post-colonial period.
And so the Nov. 9 Washington meeting created a facade of improved relations across the ocean, but did little to actually repair the damage done to US-Israel ties.
This is also the perception in the Arab world and in Europe, especially given the diplomatic stalemate and the continuation of Israeli settlement policies.
Given the ongoing crisis in US-Israel relations, Israel can now expect more EU pressure and an Arab world supporting Palestinian resistance and violence.
I like Glick.
Like Sklaroff, I too empathize with Bibi. As this article emphasizes, Bibi is constantly flying in the face of Obama’s demands. Sometimes he yields a bit to the pressure; better to be a willow tree than an oak tree in a storm. But he has yet to give up any land.
His embrace of the status quo or calm is supported by many Israelis. The right in Israel want a more robust approach to defeating our enemies and securing our right to J&S. I take issue with his choices all the time but I understand the rational for what he does.
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. Bibi may be right in exercising it. That doesn’t stop me from arguing otherwise.
Bibi does what he has to do to remain PM which in the main requires presenting himself as more moderate than many of you. I accept this as the cost of the right staying in power. Who wants to risk the Left taking over.
Yes he panicked us into voting for Likud rather than Bayit Yehudi thereby undermining the right. In this case he wasn’t stealing votes from the left but from the right.
Recent polls suggest that Ganz who is to the left of him on all the policies is preferred as PM. No one on the right would prefer Ganz.
So on balance maybe its a good thing that Bibi is more moderate than we would want.
Part of the problem is that Likud is not as Right as we wish it were.
@ rsklaroff:
You MUST be jesting Doc. I for one have no interest in attacking you. People have a variety of responses to politics, especially when it comes to these polemics with all of it’s grey areas.
I think the vast majority of people who comment on this fine blog have something very much in common, we care about Israel. I think your statement “….that BB is maxing on behalf of the interests of Eretz Yisrael…” is countered by Netanyahu’s own public misgivings for one, releasing all of those security prisoners a year or so ago. He would probably admit to error in not striking Iran’s Nuclear projects when he had a chance. He would probably admit he had been suckered. So, I think you are rooting a bit too hard for Bibi in a way which seems disingenuous, pompous and not reflecting reality. For instance, why did he sit in Sharon’s Gov’t and allow the Gaza Withdrawal to be meticulously planned and approved step by step, with his bud Ya’alon when they bolted at the last minute after they actually approved of the project and helped design it. It is a curious logic. There is a plausible answer though. Now he may have backed the plan but realized he was sunk politically, so he nuanced his way out of it. I have asked, Did Sharon know before the withdrawal from Gaza that in fact Hamas was certain to take over the strip, spoiling any hope for a viable practical doable forceable, from The so-called quartet’s view; Palestine to develop. The answer is, Yes he knew. I knew it,and I work in an operating room. If I knew it, General Sharon veteran of all of Israel’s wars, some of which he turned the tide towards victory, almost single handedly, under fire by mucky mucks like Dayan, must have known to a virtual certainty. He should have provided better for the people forced out of their homes, but he probably considered them soldiers. He probably knew it would prevent the creation of a Palestinian State. It seems as though he could have been right about that, so since Netanyahu was in on that, there is no way he was going to let Judea and Samaria become a terrorist state, it was a very clever gambit. At the last minute the two put on a dramatic act of defiance by walking out in order to position themselves politically for a future run.It was kind of a big lie, but okay, I can understand why. That does not reflect well with lots of people, like Glick who want to insist that Sharon was some kind of traitor, he was not, Glick is a jerk…and there is much more. So no Doc, not maxing, but he will get a passing grade, no doubt and he will have a chance to pleasantly surprise us once Obama is gone. So, I generally agree with the gist of your statement without the mildly humourous “maxing” comment, it is just the wrong word, bro.
@ the risk of being attacked for replying to the triad of y’all rather than to your individual comments, please allow me to recap what I’ve consistently composed…to wit…that BB is maxing on behalf of the interests of Eretz Yisrael.
When Israel had its best chance to bomb the Iranian nuclear program into extinction, Netanyahu choked. And when Israel was perfectly positioned to annihilate Hamas, Netanyahu flinched. He has had opportunities to make Israel infinitely more secure, but has instead meekly deferred to Obama.
It is therefore naive to assume that Netanyahu will suddenly obtain the will to hold his ground against Obama’s coercion. As long as the toxic combination of Barack and Bibi exists, Israel is imperiled.
@ Bear Klein:
Well, of course. As I stated in this forum, despite all of the legitimate points of contention, Netanyahu will, at the end of the day earn a passing score, for at the very least preventing the new terrorist state in Israel’s pericardial sac. And, it could not be ruled out that he will make surprise moves which could, theoretically result in an ok not good or great, review and legacy for him, as compared to Olmert. At the present point, there are NO viable alternatives. Bibi knows his job is to protect Israel from Obama. So far so good, turn up the security measures to the highest level even if it means putting another 100,000 in uniform, NO MORE LAME EXCUSES BIBii, that includes Judea and Samaria, of course.
Yep what a shock Bibi and Obama do not have fondness for each other. Bibi is giving lip service to the two state solution.
I wish the lip service would stop but this is way better than a Herzog/Livni team that would concessions in trying to actually create a disaster with an actual Palestinian State.