Comments (0)Special Report: Can Bibi And Barack Get It Together?
November 6, 2009Neil Rubin
Editor
Can Barack and Bibi embrace — if not in fact at least in principle?
After all, the pressures are mounting for both President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu. On the surface, they face some parallel challenges — an Iranian drive for nuclear weapons, the need to quell slowly simmering Arab-Israeli violence lest it drag in others, worries that al-Qaeda and other radicals will stoke global anti-Israel/anti-U.S. sentiment, and domestic priorities both hovering over and hampering their efforts.
But one need not press deeply on the boiler plate to feel the heat turning up. That’s evident in reports that the two leaders personally don’t like each other (they profess otherwise), mounting concerns of many American Jews that Mr. Obama just doesn’t get their visceral attachment to the U.S-Israeli bond, and that the Jerusalem-Washington strain of recent months could be a permanent factor in an Obama presidency — at least as long as Mr. Netanyahu stays in office.
This and more will be energetically debated and bandied about next week in the conference rooms and hallways of the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communties/Jewish Federations of North America. That’s because both leaders will address the gathering in speeches that are likely to quickly have an international impact.
The annual event, to be held in Washington, D.C. ,and attended by some 4,000-5,000 people, is the largest Jewish organizational gathering on the continent and ground zero for those taking the pulse of the American Jewish community’s concerns and priorities. In years past, the conference has brought focus and even rancor to topics such as “Who is a Jew?”, become a national shiva house for slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and seen a grappling with intermarriage and waning American Jewish identity.
This year, with much of the Jewish community nervous about the Obama administration’s outreach to Muslim nations and insistence on a complete freeze of West Bank settlements (including the amorphously-defined “natural growth”), and with Mr. Netanyahu’s every response potentially rocking his coalition, tensions between Washington and Jerusalem are at center stage.
In short, no matter what Mr. Obama says — he’s speaking next Monday, Nov. 9, while Mr. Netanyahu follows exactly 24 hours later — he will anger some and please others. The open question remains how that will play out in a region that again seems headed toward some form of confrontation if the sides cannot even sit down together.
• In Washington, the U.S. president is keenly aware that if he sends out an ambiguous message to the Israelis, it will only hamper Mideast peacemaking efforts by fraying their nerves. If he steps out too far from the standard pro-Israel rhetoric, he faces a political onslaught from the Jewish community, Christian Zionists and the GOP. The backlash could even spill over into what he’s spending the bulk of his time on — the contentious debate over healthcare and economic reforms.
Here’s a quick look at what’s at stake:
• Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian Americans will watch to see if Mr. Obama is “caving in to Jewish pressure,” particularly on settlement growth. To date, they say he is boldly defying a right-wing Israeli government — unlike his predecessor. They have found a new partner in cheering this; their representatives recently held a joint session at the first annual conference of J-Street, the new liberal pro-Israel lobby that ardently backs the White House’s Mideast peace making efforts.
• For their part, most American Jews and others will focus on not just good words for Israel, but the expected announcement of an Obama trip to Jerusalem to finally engage the Israeli people. And there will be tea leaf reading regarding signals on how the U.S. leader will address Iran’s nuclear aspirations. After all, the White House has a pending December deadline on making a “reassessment” of its policy, one already bumped back from September.
• In Jerusalem, the words could send unintended signals to both Israeli security forces and Palestinians in East Jerusalem; the two groups have of late periodically been facing off in and around the Old City in what some say could be a warm up for a third intifada. Also, what Mr. Obama says could embolden Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing flank to visibly defy the U.S. President with new settlement activity, which could not only complicate matters, but also lead to clashes with the Israeli army.
• In Arab capitals, public consumption of the remarks will either help or hinder governments from openly backing U.S. efforts on pushing the Palestinians, reigning in popular support for Hamas and even keeping oil production levels stable. In the Palestinian Authority, the embattled President Mahmoud Abbas wants to know if he can sell his people a peace process with tangible results. The West Bank economy is improving, but if violence steps up, Israel can put a quick kibosh on that with renewed roadblocks and closures. Mr. Abbas also is again threatening to resign over his frustration on not gaining a complete settlements freeze — and Hamas activists will at best ridicule anything other than recalcitrance on his part.
• Finally, foreign governments, particularly in Europe and Russia, are watching to see where they fit in the constellation of the evolving U.S. policy. (The EU has former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as its special envoy to the region.) This even has the potential to impact how NATO allies cooperate with the Americans in Afghanistan and other areas.
With all that in mind, we asked four representatives of diverse perspectives about what is happening and what they all expect and would like to hear from the two leaders next week.
Congressman C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
Maryland’s Second District Congressman serves as the House Select Committee on Intelligence’s chairman of the Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee and on the Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence Subcommittee.
“In the beginning, the relations were strained, but I think they have clearly thawed. You have to give crown and credit to both sides, who have been working to improve it. The main focus coming from Obama now is on Iran, which clearly is affecting Israel. Also, you had Secretary of State Clinton in Jerusalem this week praising Netanyahu’s restraint on settlement building. The issue of no pre-conditions for talks is something that Obama has stood behind.
“The first thing I’d like to see both of them address is Iran, which is the highest priority for the security of Israel, and then they have to talk about the peace process. … The United States of America will always support Israel. If Iran is in a position to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, that won’t be tolerated. I’m on Intelligence and we get briefings all the time, but I won’t define that. From where I sit, we’re very involved and aggressively focused on Iran’s nuclear issues and that is a high priority not only for ourselves, but for the whole world.
“The message Obama should send the Muslim world is that they have to deal with the issue of threats and terrorism and killing the other side.
“The Muslim community should stand up and educate people that Allah doesn’t want them to kill other people. Peace should be the goal of everyone and you’re not going to have it if you let a small percentage of radical extremists take control.”
Dr. Robert O. Freedman
Peggy Meyerhoff Pearlstone Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Baltimore Hebrew University and Visiting Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University
“On balance, the relationship is still good. The Israelis and Americans just finished a joint military operation. … The problem is personal and political.
“Personally if you saw the first meeting between the two in May, the press conference lasted half an hour longer than expected and Obama’s body language was not positive. However, Netanyahu made a real concession on the two-state solution. The question is whether Abbas will accept the Israeli’s partial settlement freeze. The question is whether the Palestinians can accept that after painting themselves in the corner, and you have a weakened Abbas [who does not control the Gaza Strip].
“We might be heading to a third intifada with the constant fighting in Jerusalem over the Temple Mount/Haram as the flash point. On the other hand, the economy is really improving on the West Bank and people have something to lose this time. The problem is, what will Hamas do and what happens to the refugees outside of the West Bank?
“The G.A. is going to be watched by the Arabs, who are going to feel that Israeli pressure on Washington prevented Netanyahu from following through on his settlements pledge. I think [the U.S. administration] should announce the forthcoming visit of Obama to Israel where he can speak directly to the Israeli people about certain areas of direct cooperation that should be increased, particularly American-Israeli cooperation on energy as the Israelis have done some good work on that. They should speak to the current defense exercise too so that Israelis see that the United States have close military ties and take Israel’s concerns seriously.”
James Zogby
Founder and president of the Arab American Institute
“The audience is not going to be just a subset of Americans and all Israelis, but 300 million Arabs will be listening to this speech and that presents the president with some real challenges that go beyond the Arab-Israeli conflict and to the credibility of his presidency in this region.
“I have no expectations about what Netanyahu will say other than what he’s been saying for well over a decade. He’ll talk about painful sacrifices and he is for peace and since this year his agreement to a two-state solution. … I just have a sense that he’s not serious. I have never believed that he’s a pragmatist. On the right, he’s a pragmatic manueverer and he has a clear sense of where he wants to go.
“He’ll find a way to thread a needle, but be careful not to do anything to compromise his coalition on the right. … Today he could in fact form a broader coalition [by moving forward on the peace process] if he wanted to. But he doesn’t. … There’s a certain tragedy in this because it doesn’t just hurt the prospects for peace, but this president who has inherited a very difficult situation after eight years of neglect.
“Frankly, I don’t know what the president should say. But he’ll probably echo what the secretary of state said — the steps that have been taken so far and that settlements should not be built, but there should be dialogue without pre-conditions.
“I have actually gone from guarded optimism to guarded pessimism. I don’t see the way forward. I understand the strategic game the Americans are playing. I just wish they had started with it nine months ago so as to not leave Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] out on the limb [by at first sticking to an absolute halt in settlement growth]. And yet they did, and now we’re stuck.”
Kenneth Jacobson
Anti-Defamation League Deputy National Director
“It seems they have a decent relationship, and there’s no evidence they don’t. On the other hand, I don’t want to overstate the importance of a relationship because of the shared values of the two countries.
“Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton made positive statements while in Jerusalem this week. She understands that this excessive focus on settlements — which have been an issue for every president — is not new. Now she says it’s not a precondition for negotiations. The prime minister has been open on moving forward on this issue. The Palestinians didn’t enjoy it too much, but that was a moment when something important happened because until now Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] didn’t have incentive to move forward because he said, ‘Well, the Americans are pressuring the Israelis on settlements so I don’t have to.’
“I’d like the president to make it clearer than he has so far that the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel is as strong as ever. Someone will say, how can he do that while reaching out to the Arabs and Muslims? But he can say this special relationship should never be seen as a zero sum gain. Even George W. Bush, who people said was the most pro-Israel president ever, was the first one to call for a Palestinian state.
“Second is the idea that Israel has not done anything toward peace. In my view if you get the last 10 years of history wrong and don’t acknowledge what Israel has done then it’s very hard to move forward because you don’t understand the Israeli voters.
“They are thinking that they pulled out of southern Lebanon, went to the Camp David II talks and offered everything, pulled out of the Gaza Strip and within the last year Ehud Olmert made a tremendous offer.
“I’d like to hear some recognition of that.”