Obama and Netanyahu Meet:
What's Next?

by Daniel
Pipes
Jerusalem Post
May 18, 2009

http://www.meforum.org/pipes/6365/obama-netanyahu-meet

Send

Comment

RSS

The meeting on May 18 of two newly elected leaders, Barack
Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, raises a basic question about U.S.-Israel
relations: Will this long-standing alliance survive its 62^nd
year?

Here are three reasons to expect a break from
business-as-usual:

(1) Many areas of difference exist – the Iranian nuclear
build-up, relations with Syria, Israeli adherence to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and Jews living on the West Bank – but the "two-state
solution" will likely set the meetings' tone, mood, and outcome. The
two-state idea aims to end the Arab-Israeli conflict by establishing a
Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state. The plan rests on two
assumptions: (a) that the Palestinians can construct a centralized, viable
state and (b) that attaining this state means the abandonment of their
dreams to eliminate Israel.

The two-state model found acceptance among the Israeli
public between the Oslo accords of 1993 and the new round of Palestinian
violence in 2000. On the surface, to be sure, "two state" seems yet strong
among Israelis: Ehud Olmert enthused over the Annapolis round, Avigdor
Lieberman accepts the "Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent
Two-State Solution," and a recent Tel
Aviv University poll finds "two states" still remains popular.

But many Israelis, including Netanyahu, disbelieve that
Palestinians will either construct a state or abandon irredentism.
Netanyahu prefers to shelve "two states" and focus instead on
institution-building, economic development, and quality-of-life
improvements for Palestinians. To this, the Arab states, Palestinians,
European governments, and the Obama administration near-unanimously
respond with vociferous hostility.

Question: Will differences over the two-state solution
prompt a crisis in U.S.-Israel relations?

(2) Larger strategic concerns consistently drive U.S.
attitudes to Israel: Republicans kept their distance when they
perceived Israel as a liability in confronting the Soviet Union (1948-70)
and only warmed to it when Israel proved its strategic utility (after
1970); Democrats cooled in the post-Cold War period (after 1991), when
many came to see it as an "apartheid"
state that destabilizes the Middle East and impedes U.S. policies
there.

U.S. Congressman Gary
Ackerman (left) looked benignly on Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian
Authority in August 2007.

By now, the political parties diverge greatly; polls find
Republican support for Israel exceeds Democratic support by an average
margin of 26 percentage points. Likewise, Republicans endorse the
United States helping
Israel attack Iran far more than Democrats. With Democrats now
dominating Washington, this disparity implies a cooling from the George W.
Bush years. Gary
Ackerman (Democrat of New York), chair of the House Foreign Affairs
Middle East subcommittee, exemplifies this change. Known in years past to
stand
up for Israel, he now accuses it of perpetuating "settler pogroms" and
thus taking part in a "destructive dynamic."

Question: Will the Democrats' critical views translate into
a policy shift at the forthcoming summit meeting?

(3) Obama himself comes out of the Democratic party's
intensely anti-Zionist left wing. Just a few years back, he associated
with voluble Israel-haters like Ali Abunimah, Rashid
Khalidi, Edward
Said, and Jeremiah Wright, not
to speak of Saddam
Hussein lackeys, the Council
on American-Islamic Relations, and the Nation of Islam. As Obama rose
in national politics, he distanced himself from this crew. On winning the
presidency, he appointed mostly mainstream Democrats to deal with the
Middle East. One can only speculate whether his change was tactical,
designed to deny the Republicans a campaign issue, or strategic,
representing a genuinely new approach.

Question: How deep runs Obama's antipathy toward the Jewish
state?

Some predictions: (1) Iran being Netanyahu's top priority,
he will avoid a crisis by mouthing the words "two-state solution" and
agreeing to diplomacy with the Palestinian Authority. (2) Democrats too
will be on their best behavior, checking their alienation through
Netanyahu's visit, momentarily averting a meltdown. (3) Obama, who has
plenty of problems on his hands, does not need a fight with Israel and its
supporters. His move to the center, however tactical, will last through
the Netanyahu visit.

Short term prospects, then, hold out more continuity than
change in U.S.-Israel relations. Those concerned with Israel's security
will prematurely breathe a sigh of relief – premature because the status
quo is fragile and U.S. relations with Israel could rapidly unravel.

Even a lack of progress toward a Palestinian state can
prompt a crisis, while an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear
infrastructure contrary to Obama's wishes might cause him to terminate the
bond begun by Harry Truman, enhanced by John Kennedy, and solidified by
Bill Clinton.

Related Topics: Arab-Israel conflict &
diplomacy, US policy
Daniel
Pipes

To subscribe to the MEF mailing lists, go to http://www.meforum.org/list_subscribe.php

You may post or forward this text, but on condition that you send it as an
integral whole, along with complete information about its author, date,
publication, and original URL.

The Middle East Forum