Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's arrival in Washington shortly after President Barack Obama's victory on health care reform had both symbolic significance and practical implications for the Likud leader. Obama's win was interpreted as Netanyahu's loss, reflecting the zero-sum nature of the diplomatic clash between the rightwing Israeli leader and the liberal occupant of the White House.
Netanyahu was forced to play diplomatic poker with a weaker hand and against a more assertive U.S. president, who was pressing Israel to make substantial reductions to its settlement plans in East Jerusalem. If Netanyahu bowed to the demands, he would face strong opposition from the ultra-nationalist and ultra-orthodox parties in his cabinet, which could lead to the collapse of his ruling coalition. If he rejected the U.S. request, he could ignite a major confrontation with Israel's top global patron and risk an electoral backlash from an Israeli public that tends to punish politicians who are willing to put at risk the relationship between the Jewish state and the world's remaining superpower.
That "Bibi" arrived in Washington just in time to witness the aftermath of a historic political confrontation over the course of U.S. domestic policy was no coincidence. An obsessive consumer of Washington news and gossip -- much of it filtered to him through the lens of rightwing media and phone conversations with the likes of Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer -- Netanyahu likely thought he was going to meet with the U.S. president just as the Age of Obama was coming to an end.
During the weeks and months preceding Netanyahu's visit, Republicans and Tea Partiers had vigorously promoted a wildly inflated political narrative, according to which Obama's domestic agenda -- including on health care -- exposed the president's dictatorial tendencies and radical ideology. Netanyahu's arrival injected a foreign policy component into this storyline. Not just a socialist at home, Obama was also a serial appeaser of terrorists and rogue regimes, the most anti-Israeli and pro-Arab figure to ever occupy the White House.
Watching Bibi massaging his political message to Americans -- including at a meeting of evangelical pastor John Hagee's Christian's United for Isreal in Jerusalem on the eve of Vice President Joe Biden's fateful visit to Israel in early March--it seemed as though the prime minister was running for office in the U.S. Congress, as the distinguished representative from the state of Israel. His neocon interlocutors in the United States may have even nurtured this impulse. In the end, however, Netanyahu was not only forced to confront the U.S. president on severely weakened terms, he also confirmed his allegiance to a defeated U.S. political club that proved incapable of providing him realistic guidance.
The political and ideological love affair between Netanyahu and the neocons goes back to the Reagan presidency and the final years of the Cold War, when Bibi served as Israel's representative to the United Nations and then as ambassador to the United States. Members of the first generation of the neoconservative movement--including the likes of Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, and Max Kampelman--were occupying top foreign-policy positions in the administration. For Israel's ruling Likud Party, the policies of the Republican Party seemed to offer the country time to consolidate its hold on the West Bank and Gaza as it encouraged a receptive Washington to view the Arab-Israeli conflict through a Cold War lens.
Netanyahu's UN speeches echoed the Likud-neocon line of that time: the PLO was a Soviet-controlled terrorist organization, Israel was America's "strategic asset" in the Middle East, and the U.S.-Israeli alliance was containing the international terrorist threat advanced by Moscow and its Palestinian and other Arab allies. The two countries were finding themselves increasingly isolated on the international stage. At times, it was difficult to figure out, after listening to UN Ambassadors Kirkpatrick and Netanyahu speak, who represented the United States and who Israel.
Netanyahu returned to Israel to become foreign minister just as the Cold War was ending and Reagan was leaving office. He succeeded in replacing the moribund Soviet threat with new Middle Eastern bogeymen. Israel would now help protect U.S. interests in the region against Arab nationalists (Saddam Hussein) and Muslim fundamentalists (the mullahs in Iran). Thus was born the new Likud-neocon spin.
But President George H.W. Bush and his realist advisers didn't buy the spin and confronted the Likud government over the issue of settlements in the West Bank. This approach both antagonized the neocons and weakened the Likud Party, which lost parliamentary elections in 1992 to the Labor Party and its leader, Yitzchak Rabin. Netanyahu, a strident opponent of the Oslo Process, played a major role in mobilizing Israeli opinion against Rabin, whom Likud propaganda likened to Hitler, helping foment an extremely polarized political context in the country. Shortly after Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli-Jewish terrorist in 1995, Netanyahu was elected to his first term as prime minister.
"On July 8, 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's newly elected prime minister and the leader of its rightwing Likud Party, paid a visit to the neoconservative luminary Richard Perle in Washington, D.C.," journalist Craig Unger wrote in Vanity Fair in March 2007. "The subject of their meeting was a policy paper that Perle and other analysts had written for an Israeli-American think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic Political Studies. Titled 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,' the paper contained the 'kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East.'"
The paper, which received input from several additional U.S. neocons like Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, proposed that by waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, Israel and the United States could better ensure Israeli security. President Bill Clinton didn't sign on, but his successor, George W. Bush, did. Ideas like those promoted in the paper figured highly in the decision to invade Iraq.
In 2009, Netanyahu ran for a second term as prime minister on a platform of burying the corpse of the peace process and expanding Jewish settlements. Bibi's winning coalition included members of the nationalist and ultra-orthodox fringe of Israeli politics. However, the coalition was not complete--Netanyahu and his neocon friends had counted on the election of their political ally, Sen. John McCain, as well as the possible selection of Sen. Joseph Lieberman as vice president (or secretary of state).
Instead of the Mac-Bibi dream team, the U.S. elections presented the Likud-neocon faction with their worst nightmare--a president who was calling for negotiations with Iran and Syria, reiterating his commitment to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and appointing Mideast advisers like George Mitchell who were not beholden to Israel (while relegating those who were, like Dennis Ross, to less influential posts).
On June 4, 2009, President Obama stated during a much anticipated speech in Cairo that the "United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." Ten day later, Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar-Ilan University in which he endorsed, for the first time, a "demilitarized Palestinian state," but only under the condition that Jerusalem remain the united capital of Israel, the Palestinians have no army, and they give up their demand for a right of return. He also stated that Israel had the right to continue with "natural growth" in the existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Despite Obama's willingness to drop demands for a settlement freeze before restarting peace negotiations, the issue has remained a highly contentious one. For a while it seemed as though Obama and his aides would be willing to risk a political confrontation with Netanyahu over a freeze. But problems at home restricted Obama's ability to exert leverage during diplomatic bargaining, forcing him to reach a compromise with Israel in November 2009 which, in exchange for a 10-month settlement freeze, would permit previously approved expansions in the West Bank and continued building in East Jerusalem. The compromise failed to satisfy the Palestinian Authority and its allies in the Arab League, who rejected Obama's request that they reciprocate by allowing Israeli commercial planes to use their airspace and easing visa restrictions.
Netanyahu may have concluded that he had gained the upper hand in the diplomatic duel with Obama, leading him to test U.S. resolve by giving a green light to a new ultra-orthodox Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah, an Arab part of the city that most observers assumed would become part of a new Palestinian state. After Obama administration officials criticized the move, Bibi, according to Israeli press reporters, blamed the response on Obama's American-Jewish advisors, Emanuel Rahm and David Axelrod, whom he allegedly described as "self-hating Jews."
The dispute over the settlements, however, did not reach a crisis point until Vice President Biden's visit to Israel in early March, when the Israeli government made an ill-timed announcement about the construction in Seikh Jarrah. Thus was ignited the most dramatic crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations since 1991, when President George H. W. Bush threatened to punish Israel unless it stopped settlement expansion in the occupied territories. In addition to being an Israeli diplomatic slap, the announcement jeopardized U.S. plans for "proximity" talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Obama and his aides decided that unless they responded with a tough message, Washington could end up losing its credibility--or what's left of it--in the Arab world.
It is doubtful that current tensions between the two countries will lead to a long-term divorce. Support for Israel in Congress remains strong, and Obama and the Democrats have a huge stake in maintaining the commitment of Jewish voters. However, it is clear that Bibi--a.k.a. Congressman Netanyahu (R-Israel)--will have to reassess his failed strategy of counting on U.S. rightwing allies to counterbalance the pressure from the president. Otherwise, Israeli voters may decide to replace their "representative" to Washington with a more centrist figure.
The commentary was originally published on IPS Right Web
Follow Leon T. Hadar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/leonhadar
Naomi Klein: Open Letter to Berkeley Students on Their Historic Israeli Divestment Bill
Berkeley's recent divestment bill opposing Israeli war crimes stands to have a global impact, helping to build a grassroots, non-violent movement to end Israel's violations of international law.
They are one of the leading inspirations of terror against both Israel and, as General Patraeus recently reaffirmed, the United states.
Please also not that it is not as thought these settlements were something WORTH absorbing the terrorism, the deaths, and the trillions in losses for both Israel and the US, that they inspire.
Rather, they are morally and strategically indefensible, and if left unchecked will cost the US many more trillions in costs related to terror than they already have, and will be the undoing of any hope of a democratic Jewish state, as eventually it will lead the entire nation to a state of sustained apartheid and hopeless ethnic cleansing, or, conversely, an overwhelming Arab Majority when all of the Palestinians are finally granted citizenship. There really is no in between. If the setters are allowed to continue to steal land, they must eventually run all the Palestinians out, (ethnic cleansing) leave them there as people who are less than citizens (apartheid) or make them citizens and lose Jewish majority in an instant.
If we act now, we can still kill the settlement program, get most of them evacuated and find a way to finally initiate a lasting peace. This is in the Interest of both Israel and the US.
Radical Islam is on the rise.
People like Mr Hadar are bitter because their Soviet friends have been defeated during the Cold War.
The best way to address the radical Islam threat is to convince Muslims that terror is not an option and will cost them a very high price. Following the foolish ideologies and the diplomatic demagoguery of the current American administration will create more war.
Because of their past failures, the so-called peace camp must prove its ability to deliver the promises goods before been trusted.
Mr Hadar, what lessons are you drawing of the Gaza withdrawal and of the blatant failure of Oslo?
The problem is that even as loving a parent as Mom will eventually get fed up. This one problem child is ruining her relationships with her other children, and the string of neighbourhood break-ins is ruining mom's social standing. And finally, Mom's smart enough to understand that enabling this behaviour can do her child no good in the long run. In fact, this could easily be Israel's ruin.
When she comes to this realization she's going to do as her friends have been counselling for years: set one more boundary, and then (finally) come down like a ton of bricks when it, too, gets defiantly ignored.
That just happened.
Too bad you do play favorites.
Without meaning to, American generosity has given Israel its disastrous 'Israel never has to do anything it doesn't feel like' theory. Mom's problem is to drive home the lesson that all grown-ups, sometimes, have to do things they didn't want to, and Mom wants to do it without making Israel really feel unloved.
Yes, there's gonna be some tantrums, slammed doors, and yells of, "I hate you! You're RUINING my life!" but it's gotta happen, one way or other. Openly contemptuous behavior like Netanyahu's treatment of Biden has to end.
By the way, Israel ignored Oslo.
First, Israel has in the last 6 months openly insulted most of the US major allies. The EU, Turkey, Dubai, Lebanon, heck even Brasil have been subjected to diplomatic insults and demands that Israel be seen as exempted from international law.This, Petraeus noted, is a danger to the coalition fighting the war on terror. No matter how much Israeli bloggers deny it Israel is a liability to the US.
Second, the Nethanyahu goverment has insulted and derided this administration over and over again. To say that it didnt deserve a serious scolding seems like a joke. This is a Israeli government wich has openly spoken with two voices for a long time. The terror of the settlers against palestinians under IDF protection has now become a institution, with settlers conducting regular pogroms against palestinian villages. All this while the Israelis are pretending to act in good faith.
Third, there's that quaint and outdated concept of international law. If Obama is to have legitimacy in laying down the law on Iran, it just looks ridiculous at the same time to insist on Israels exceptionalism.Buildings in E J'lem and the settlements are *illegal*. They insist they have the right to break the law while all others must follow it? Ridiculous.
You are quite correct in your analysis, as non-hasbara inebriated participants in this forum will be able to see.
Obama's main problem "at home" is, that a large majority of Americans don't share his views on Israel and the arab world.
Biden: I hope I didn't overdo it by showing up 90 minutes late.
Netanyahu: It was a surprise, but it added a convincing touch.
Obama: I really did want to eat dinner with you at the White House, but Hill said that snubbing you would like we were really, really serious.
Hillary: He was headed down to dinner & I dragged him off to play with the Wii. I had to run with the idea.
Netanyahu: Gotcha. Not a problem. As long as I get the $, I don't care how much you hate me.
Obama: (clearing his throat) We want you to halt the settlements. But the check is good, so to speak.
The first is that the younger generation of American Jews do not see the same things their parents and grandparents saw. The worldwide acceptance of Jews, without the rabid anti-Semitism (irregardless of what some posters here and Israel says) is moving forward. And the second is the use of the internet for news reporting. The younger generation of Jews can see the inhumane actions of Israel and do not agree with them.
That number is lowering. As it does there will be less lobbying for US supported war mongering by Israel.
Hardly a large majority.
America and Israel's interests are not the same. Our foreign policy should reflect that.
Support for Israel in our Congress doesn't just "remain strong", it is involuntarily prescribed or shall we just say for most of our Congress Reps and Senators ........it is forced. This should not be the norm.
2.2% of the vote does not guarantee much, if the tide were to turn against our unconditional support of Israel, it would surely have plenty of momentum. But Israeli bias and our "enduring special relationship" have been inculcated in most people who live in America. Eyes open wide....it's good to question that which is forced upon us. If we learned nothing else from 2 wars, financial crisis....one occupation, we learn to scrutinize. Congress agrees on nothing. Congress agrees on Israel.....Red flag!!!
We have an obligation to vote out elected officials who refuse to criticize Israel.
No foreign policy should go UNCHECKED.