Confrontation: Netanyahu and Obama Agree on Almost Nothing
It was clear from the Obama-Netanyahu press conference that the two leaders most decidely did not see eye-to-eye. That is why there was no joint statement but essentially two statements. Obama put forth his well-known views on a Palestinian state and on attacking Iran. (He wants the first and opposes the second). Netanyahu's views were precisely the opposite.
The whole proceeding seemed kind of frosty. Netanyahu seemed eager to ingratiate himself with Obama while Obama was no more than proper. Anyone who recalls the Sharon/Bush or Olmert/Bush lovefests has to be struck by the difference. In this relationship, Netanyahu can take nothing for granted. And he ought not try.
Over the next week, as the President gets ready for his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, it will become inceasingly clear that Israel and the United States are farther apart on the key issues than they have been in decades.
On Palestine:
You want to know what Prime Minister Netanyahu is up to? Here it is, from the New York Times on June 27, 1992. The Likud prime minister then was Yitzhak Shamir who had just been defeated by Yitzhak Rabin.
"Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was quoted in a published interview today as saying he wanted to drag out peace talks with the Palestinians for a decade while vastly increasing the number of Jewish settlers in Israeli-occupied territories.
"Had he held on to his office instead of being defeated this week in Israel's national election, Mr. Shamir reportedly said, 'I would have conducted negotiations on autonomy for 10 years and in the meantime we would have reached half a million people" in the West Bank.' "
Shamir, of course, is one of Netanyahu's heroes and mentors. Sixteen years later, he has the same strategy Shamir did. He says he will negotiate but he will not commit himself to Palestinian statehood.
The only questions are (1) why would the Palestinians negotiate on that basis and (2) why would an American President press them to participate in such a charade.
The answers. They won't. And he won't.
On Iran:
Netanyahu wants a green light for war. He did not get one. All he got was a tentative commitment from Obama that if diplomacy does not resolve the nuclear question by the end of the year, he, Obama, will see where we are and act accordingly.
Netanyahu is no dummy. He knows that there will be no military solution to the Iran problem under Obama's watch. But he has to keep pressing (public opinion at home is totally hawkish on the issue) and he figures that Obama won't push him as hard on a Palestinian state if he keeps the Iran issue out there.
Of course, the opposite is probably the case. Obama wants action on a Palestinian state to help ease tensions with Iran and make a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue more likely.
In short, the two leaders are at loggerheads, just as we all expected. It could get ugly.
Leonard Doyle writing for the Telegraph said it all:
'The era of the blank cheque is over - from now on Israel must earn its privileged relationship with the United States - Mr Obama will make it clear that he will not allow his foreign policy objectives to be dictated by Israel and that Israel must resume working for peace with the Palestinians.'
'The President has already fired warning shots across the bow of the Israeli government to signal that he will not be pushed around by Mr Netanyahu's new Right-wing coalition.'
So that's about the size of it. Either negotiate genuinely for peace and a two state solution - or find another sponsor elsewhere.
May 18, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are right, colindale, but Obama has shown a tendency to flip flop and I worry he might be pressured by AIPAC and their friends.
May 20, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the endgame, MJ? Do you see Obama recognizing a Palestinian state if Netanyahoo blows him off?
May 18, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Dream;
I hope they find a way to create two states and hopefully live in peace. It will be very difficult, my hopes for Netanyahu are very very low. But I'd love to be proved wrong. And there are some precedents.
May 18, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It "could" get ugly?
Thanks for brightening this otherwise gloomy report with your understated humor, MJ.
May 18, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite bit in this content-free fluff is this:
It takes a special kind of willful blindness and naivete to think that the Iranians will give up their nuclear ambitions if Israel makes the sort of concessions MJ wants them to make. Leaving aside the question of whether such concessions are a good idea on the merits - a debatable point, to be sure - anyone who thinks this is the key to the Iranian nuclear quandary is just batty.
Sometimes it seems that the left has such a singular focus on Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank that it imbues withdrawal with almost magical powers. As if Israeli withdrawal, besides turning the Iranian lion into a lamb, will cause the hungry to be sated, the lame to walk again and the land to be filled with frankenscence and myrrh.
Kinda makes you choke up just thinking about it.
May 18, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The very idea of a quid pro quo is morally repugnant to the nth degree. Is Netanhayu saying that if he does not get his way with Iran, then he will not grant the Palestinians their homeland? How absurd!
The idea of a viable Palestinian homeland has intrinsic merit and cannot be held hostage to some other wish list Netanyahu might have, such as Bombing runs over Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Secondly the very fact that Israel is a powerful nuclear state and therefore "threatens” non nuclear neighbors gives Iran some moral standing to equalize the strategic equation.
So the new talking points (of the Israeli maximalists) are that none of the Arab states are thrilled with a nuclear Iran. Which ones? Cliptocracies such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the rest of the UNDEMOCRATIC corrupt so-called "allies". What about Lebanon and Syria?
Even if military action against Iran takes place, there is no way to stop Iran going nuclear eventually, even if the bombing takes place with or without the green light(or with actual participation) of the USA.
The Fundamental Mistake Israel (FMoI) made was to adopt the policy that they would overwhelmingly dominate the region militarily and thereby achieve the objective of a Greater Israel by ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from the region.
That policy has turned out to be an enormous blunder on the part of Israel and USA’s long term –planning for the region. Obama is not going to continue to follow down that losing path and he has the power to dictate what will happen (and if it does not happen the future of Fortress Israel looks dim). It is that simple.
Obama has decoupled the Identity-of-Interest-Doctrine enunciated by Israel and foolishly accepted by George W Bush for 8 years.
May 18, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pot calling the kettle black; BradtheDad-from the not willfully blind or naive Bush04Base.
You are delusional Brad if you think Israel will ever give back the West Bank, even Moses returning and commanding it would not suffice.
May 18, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Realistically, do you want to know what it would take to convince Israel to leave the West Bank?
1. A period of 5-10 years (at least) of non-belligerence on the part of the Palestinians. What that means is no terrorist attacks, no rockets, no incitement.
2. Fundamental reform of the Palestinian government, such that it retains a monopoly on the use of force and is democratically accountable.
3. A Palestinian leadership that unequivocally recognizes Israel.
4. A dedicated outreach on the part of the Palestinian leadership to the Israeli people, not just the government. That means the Palestinian president directly addressing the Israeli people, declaring a desire to live in peace and mutual respect.
5. An absolute commitment on the part of the Palestinian leadership to declare the conflict unequivocally over and done with, for all time, once a peace treaty is signed. This must include a renunciation of all future claims against Israel, such as the right of return of the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
6. A program of outreach from the wider Arab and Islamic worlds, saying that once a Palestinian state is achieved, they will all recognize Israel and establish diplomatic and trade relations.
This is not to make an assertion that Israel should do nothing until these conditions are met. Nor is it to declare that Israel has done nothing wrong or that satisfying these requirements represents justice. I am trying to envision a set of circumstances that would realistically allow a compromise-minded Israeli government to (a) get the votes needed to authorize a withdrawal; (b) get the public behind such a deal; and most importantly (c) gather the political capital needed to withstand the absolutely ferocious resistance a withdrawal would engender. There is likely to be near-civil war in Israel and the majority of Israelis need to feel that such a national trauma will be worthwhile because it would yield a benefit of incalculable value: the end to the conflict that they've been dreaming about for decades.
This is why the idea that Obama is going to successfully pressure the Netanyahu government (or any Israeli government, for that matter) to withdraw is so mind-bogglingly absurd. In the current situation, we are so far below the minimum threshold for Israel to even consider a withdrawal that you have to wonder what it is about this conflict that causes such mass delusion on so many levels.
May 19, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your brainwashing has been well done, Brad. Per your predictable remarks, the sole complete and entire solution to every problem between Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians -who 60 years after the Israelis got a country, still don't have one to operated through- have to fulfill an impossible set of preconditions, while Israel need do absolutely nothing.
Maybe we could adapt approach this to the stand-off in current U.S. domestic politics:
The Republicans must publicly confess each day for five years what idiots they were to nominate Sarah Palin, who would have difficulty locating Alaska on the globe, for the second highest office in the country.
Then maybe Democrats will consider taking Republican preferences into account when drafting and passing legislation in Congress.
May 19, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
PTroub:
Brad:
If you're not going to read what people write, what is the point of having a discussion?
You remind me of that old Monty Python sketch: "That's not an argument. That's just contradiction."
"No it's not."
"Yes it is."
"No it's not."
"Yes it is."
May 19, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
When have you ever conceded a point? A discussion is not xeroxing your own comments.
May 19, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now for something completely different:
Brad will spell out conditions 1-6 that Israel must fulfill in order achieve a lasting peace with the Palestinians.
(Suspenseful drum roll)
Might he consider that George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and circa 98% of the rest of the world are and have been correct in viewing as one such pre-condition a true halt to the building of Israeli settlements on land that would have to be part of a Palestinian state in order for such a state to be viable?
Or have the writers of such a script perchance been preemptively sacked by AIPAC?
May 19, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question was whether Israel would ever withdraw from the West Bank and what would it take to entice Israel to do such a thing. Unsurprisingly, you interpret that to mean that the Palestinians are the only ones who need to do the enticing.
I am in total agreement with those who say that Israel needs to entice the Palestinians as well, starting with a halt on settlements. I'm just not convinced that the settlements are as big an issue as the leftist analysis would have you believe.
May 19, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Monty Python aside, I would say that the settlements are a big deal because they show how Israel's future is being hijacked by a small minority of deluded fanatics. Israel's security -which is so precious that the Congress of the United States (a SOVEREIGN, SEPARATE country!) must bow down and lie prostrate before it- would not suffer a bit if every settlement in the entire West Bank were removed as fast as possible. Indeed, it would surely be easier to defend Israel itself if all those far-flung land-grabbing outposts could simply be abandoned. It is not a question of whether settlement removal would "entice" a great immediate change in the human nature of Palestinians. It is a question of whether Israel wants to continue, decade after decade, to tether its future, and whether the U.S. Congress will continue its blind subservience to, a bunch of thugs and religious kooks.
One might quite legitimately ask the same question of Palestinians regarding THEIR terrorists IF Palestinians were allowed to have a government that could answer for it.
May 19, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - You certainly are naive. I was in Isreal a great deal between 73 and 87 and lived there in 83 and 84. Except for some criminal acts by individuals the Palestinians met your conditions. There was no violence, rockets or terrorists. The Palestinians were not happy but they were compliant with the occupation.
They had no government because Israel would not let them. What leadership they had (usually academics) certainly acknowledged Israel. They asked very politely for autonomy/statehood and Israel laughed at them So by 87 their frustration broke out in the first infitada.
Do you REALLY think it is any different now? Remember when I wrote about the election cmpaign where Likud politicians were showing maps of Palestinian "reservations". That is what Bibi is talking about when he says we have no desire to govern the Palestinians.
If you really think Israel is about to abandon their $100 billion settlement enterprise - you're nuts. Have you ever been to the West Bank? If you had there is no way you could say with a straight face that the settlements are not an impediment to peace. I suggest you get your butt out to Kiryat Araba, Bet Ayn etc and see what really goes on.
Can you name any current Kadima, Likud,or Labor politician who has ever offered the Palestinians a viable state? Camp David sure did not - the Palestinians would have been totally surrounded by Israel and would have no control over their egress and ingress. Camp David was merely an offer of bigger prison grounds. Even Livni's discussions envisioned the same thing except Israel would pay the Palestinians for an indefinite lease on the Jordan Valley - Palestinian in the percentages but useless to them.
Israel is treating the Palestinians like sh#t and you have the audacity to lay out 6 conditions for the Palestinians to meet but glibly say well maybe the Israelis should do "something". You categorically refuse to take up the challange of 6 things that Israel should do to reciprocate. After decades of mistreatment at the hands of the Israelis, the least that you could do is at least acknowledge that Palestinians are equal human beings.
As you might suspect by this diatribe, I have made a negative aliyah decision. I am so pissed off at Israel right now I'd be tearing my hair out if I were not already bald.
May 19, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since 1993 there has been an acknowledgment by Israel that a two-state solution is a legitimate resolution to the conflict with the Palestinians. So to argue that because the Palestinians inside the West Bank were not violent 20 years before but still didn't get a state is kinda irrelevant. If you knew as much about Israel as you say you know, you'd also know what a big deal it has been over the last 15 years to formally acknowledge the need for a Palestinian state. Israel has irrevocably crossed the line into making the idea of a Palestinian state a legitimate topic of negotiation.
So yes, I do think things are different now.
May 20, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - If Israel acknowledges the need for a Palestinian state why won't Netanyahu say it? Do you think his idea of reservations constitues a "state" is something to be proud of? I would really like to understand this "magnanimous, humane, generous, wise Israel" you seem to know?
May 20, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
A majority of Israelis have said that a two-state solution is legitimate. Ariel Sharon, arch-Likudnik, has agreed. Netanyahu has danced around the subject.
Undoubtedly, the Likud and its supporters have a much narrower view of what a two-state solution actually means.
May 21, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad - Are reservations acceptable to you? The plan is basically Areas A & B totally surrounded and controlled by Israel.
May 21, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choke, huh? So what specifically is your solution, oh anguished one? Another 60 years of war until the bad Palestinians finally admit to their sinfulness?
May 18, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad the Dad,
Perhaps not, but should we completely reject the idea that such progress in the larger regional arena could have the effect of marginalizing Ahmadinejad politically within Iran? Should it really be considered so naive to advocate a set of policies that the pursuit of which could even have such a short-term effect on next month's elections in Iran?
May 19, 2009 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "In short, the two leaders are at loggerheads, just as we all expected. It could get ugly."
MY COMMENT:"There Will Be Blood"(I fear)
May 18, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC is BAD for democracy - BAD for Jewish Americans - BAD for America and, ultimately, BAD for Israel.
Democracy is about the will of the majority - not the vested interest of a minority pulling strings in high places.
No matter how many threats emanate from AIPAC's high command and issued to media outlets worldwide - the plain truth is that Israel is a small state of just 6 million in a world of 6 billion, trying to punch way above its weight. But that was prior to a man becoming President who cannot be bought by a self-serving lobby of just a few thousand.
Jewish Americans will dump AIPAC because it's now crystal clear who's boss. And its certainly not little Netanyahu with stories from the Spanish Inquisition and a chip on his shoulder.
We're now in 2009 not 1478. Wake up, this is democratic America!
May 19, 2009 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
There may have assurances given in the White House, or creative joint scheming, that is being kept out of the press. I hope so, but I doubt it.
I think Netanyahu is indeed pulling the Shamir play, as MJ reminds: "drag out peace talks with the Palestinians for a decade while vastly increasing the number of Jewish settlers in Israeli-occupied territories."
Netanyahu probably believes Obama's got enough on his plate that he can't effectively take on a spiteful AIPAC and make progress for a durable peace (i.e., the last thing on earth that AIPAC wants). How this is really in Netanyahu's interest I don't understood, but this is what it looks like.
May 19, 2009 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that Netanyahu's coalition isn't the most solid in Israeli history. Meanwhile, Joe the Plumber's recent gig in Israel failed miserably to scare Israelis away from the Obama administration, as even the more conservatively skewed of two recent polls shows that 71% of Israelis consider Obama either "pro-Israel" or "neutral."
May 19, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Remember that Netanyahu's coalition isn't the most solid in Israeli history."
I hadn't focused on that point, thanks for educating me. Seriously.
"Meanwhile, Joe the Plumber's recent gig in Israel failed miserably to scare Israelis away from the Obama administration, as even the more conservatively skewed of two recent polls shows that 71% of Israelis consider Obama either "pro-Israel" or "neutral.""
I didn't know that at all. That's not what good ole John Bolton wants them to believe!
So, your first point suggests to me that Netanyahu needs to look tough. You second point suggests Israelis won't be too enamored of him actually confronting Obama.
May 19, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It probably remains to be seen. But considering that Israeli voters seem at least receptive to Obama and that Livni has embraced an opposition role, if I was a better gambler I might bet that Netanyahu is likely to face a no-confidence vote or two if he gets too cute by half.
May 19, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Thanks for the insight!
May 20, 2009 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure. But as always, we'll see....
May 20, 2009 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
OverreachTHIS,
While we're on the subject, check this out.
May 20, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks a whole lot, and I'm glad that thanks to you I didn't miss this article!
Love this quote:
"Bibi's [...] ambition was to be prime minister, and now that he has achieved that, he has nothing to say and nowhere to go, and faces the unenviable fate of facing an American president of seemingly boundless ambition whose work has only begun."
The conclusion, though, is really a trip. Again, thanks much indeed. Bar Kafka, my TPM Dashboard is (once again) busted, so for the moment I may have trouble finding notes from you -- thanks for your understanding and for the *great* dialogue/information.
My sincere best, and Jail Cheney,
O.T.
May 20, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
You say on Iran:
"Netanyahu wants a green light for war. He did not get one. All he got was a tentative commitment from Obama that if diplomacy does not resolve the nuclear question by the end of the year, he, Obama, will see where we are and act accordingly."
Actually, Obama said no such thing. He said he would be in a position to assess how engagement with Iran was going by the end of the year. Even if you would minimize the importance of Iranian cooperation with US on a huge range of issues in the Middle East, and the Caucuses, and fixate on nuclear, still, the end of the year comment was to do with assessment of progress, not resolution of the issue.
Israel's interests are best served by being a cheer-leader of such an engagement, instead of poo-pooing it every which way they can. Obama's words: "reach out", "persuade". these are very different to "confront", and "coerce".
Here is what Obama said in the presence of an Israeli priminister who has been doing his upmost to portray Iran in as negative a light as possible:
"Iran is a country of extraordinary history and extraordinary potential, that we want them be a full-fledged member of the international community and be in a position to provide opportunities and prosperity for their people, but that the way to achieve those goals is not through the pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
And I indicated to Prime Minister Netanyahu in private what I have said publicly, which is that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned, including for Iran.
We are engaged in a process to reach out to Iran and persuade them that it is not in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon and that they should change course."
The transcript is available here:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212407640&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
May 19, 2009 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
America and Israel are no doubt farther apart now than during 2001-06 when America found itself inclined to behave in the Mideast they way Israel typically behaves on the West Bank: arrogantly, disproportionately, and with no viable long term plan. Meanwhile, however, the settler-lobby that pretends to represent Israel in the U.S. is certainly as far way from common sense and reality as ever.
Obama is a careful man, and is likely to avoid most tricks and traps that might be set against him, but the critical issue remains: we know he can talk the talk on peace and diplomacy, can he also walk the walk? It is still early days on that one. There are good grounds for optimism, but only with a heavy dose of caution.
May 19, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What we are seeing is a strategic holding pattern from netanyahu.
He is waiting to see how far congress can be influenced to subvert the will of the president of the united states.
aipac and the usual suspects are feverishly pressuring both parties in a blatant attempt to undermine obamas position.
Surly obama realizes this .
He must make a speech next month after he meets with abbas clearly stating his vision and what it means to the security of the middle east and how it relates to the best interests of this country.
There is no other way to deal with this issue then to take it directly to the people .
the congress can only be expected to continue to give israel a blank check at the expense of the united states.
failure by obama to clearly and forcibly state his position will only lead to more of the same.
expect the criticism of obama being anti- israel to heat up.
but, this is a dangerous strategy.
the people are in no mood to tolerate a popular president portrayed that way.
Especially when he can deftly turn world opinion against his critics, if pushed to far.
May 19, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh that wily Bibi, always holding all the cards!
May 19, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
thats not what i said.
but the truth is never important to types like you.
May 20, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keith Weissman, the quiet man of the AIPAC duo, finally speaks his mind on Iran and he is so reasonable that the IPF would be well-served by hiring him:
"There is no viable military option for dealing the Iranian nuclear threat, and efforts by the Israeli government and its supporters to link that threat to progress in peace with the Palestinians and Syria are "nonsense" and an obstacle to the Arab-Israeli and international cooperation essential to changing Iranian behavior.
That's the conclusion of Keith Weissman, the Iran expert formerly at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), speaking publicly for the first time since the government dropped espionage charges against him and his colleague, Steve Rosen, earlier this month.
There's no assurance an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities - even if all of them could be located - would be anything more than a temporary setback, Weissman told me. Instead, a military strike would unify Iranians behind an unpopular regime, ignite a wave of retaliation that would leave thousands dead from Teheran to Tel Aviv, block oil exports from the Persian Gulf and probably necessitate a ground war, he said.
"The only viable solution is dialogue. You don't deal with Iran with threats or preaching regime change," said Weissman, who has lived in Iran, knows Farsi (as well as Arabic, Turkish and French) and wrote his doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago on Iranian history. That's where the Bush administration went wrong, in his view.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212417034&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
May 19, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its interesting ...as a teacher in a private school, I meet quite a few Arabs and no small amount of Jews (most quite secular). When the Palestinian issue arises, particularly the recent foray into Gaza, my Muslim friends' hatred of the Isreali government's policies in that regard is often manifested in a deep seething silence. They are reluctant to speak openly about their views. In private their response is more direct, and without my exageration, could be reduced to "I hate the Jews". My Jewish students are often less concerned and even apathetic: "It's not my fault". My more religious Jewish friends generally take the attitude of "You can't trust the Palestinians." I sense that, to put it mildly, these people don't like each other; I don't think they can ever live side by side in peace; and as a student of history,its difficult to find an instance where these sorts of deep seated animosities have not resulted in race warfare. The ugliest kind. Should remain interesting.
May 20, 2009 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink