Obama and Netanyahu Need to Mend Fences

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Jan. 15, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

           Starting off on the wrong foot, President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu need to get on the same page in Barack’s next term.  With Obama’s inaugural slated for Sunday, Jan. 20 and Netanyahu heading for reelection Jan. 22, both leaders need to find common ground.  Since Sept. 11, the U.S. and Israel have been joined at the hip in fighting the war on terror.  Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney saw on TV Palestinians dancing in the streets after Sept. 11, realizing that Israel is the U.S.’s only natural Mideast ally.  Now that Obama picked former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as his Defense Secretary, Israel wants some reassurance that the White House won’t return to bullying tactics, pushing Israel into a one-sided peace deal with Palestinians.  Since 2007, Palestinians have been divided between Gaza and the West Bank.

              Obama has been at odds with Netanyahu over his insistence to continue Israeli construction projects in the West Bank.  White House officials haven’t fully come to grips with a divided Palestine.  When Hamas ejected Mahmoud Abbas’ Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority June 7, 2007, the Islamist faction in Gaza was officially at war with Israel.  Before the Hamas’ Gaza takeover, the Palestinian Authority set official policy with Israel.  Hamas has been at war with Israel since founded by paraplegic Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 1987.  White House officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, haven’t acknowledged that the U.S. no longer has a Palestinian peace partner.  “It’s troubled [U.S.-Israel relations].  It’s the greatest dysfunction between leaders that I’ve seen in my 40 years in watching and participating,” said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

             Instead of clarifying points of disagreement, Miller offers no suggestions.  White House officials need to accept the fact that both Hamas and Fatah [the political wing of the Palestinian Authority] must resolve their disunity before they can negotiate peace with Israel.  Given that both Palestinian entities occupy spoils of the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel should have more leverage.  Without Israeli spoils, Palestinians would have no territory to settle for an eventual state.  Miller says he hasn’t seen worse relations since the Nixon administration.  He forgets that every U.S. administration—except that of George W. Bush—has pressured Israel into making concessions.  “I don’t think we are headed for a showdown,” said Miller,  “but the relationship will continue to be dysfunctional,” especially with Hagel slated as Defense Secretary.  Like Bush, Obama needs to accept a post-Sept. 11 Mideast.

             When Hagel meets for his confirmation with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a few weeks, he’ll have to clarify his positions on Israel, Iran and past statements about gays.  Nothing’s insurmountable for Hagel, unless he shows tone deafness about Israel’s strategic post-Sept. 11 position.  Supporting Israel in an appropriate settlement with Palestinians doesn’t mean the U.S. has lost its neutrality.  Since Sept. 11—and even before—the U.S. had a vested interest in maintaining Israel’s military superiority in the Middle East.  If the Arab Spring has taught Mideast experts anything, it’s that the U.S. is not well-aligned with Islamic movements.  Cutting Netanyahu some slack is preferable over what Miller calls “dysfunction.”  With the U.S. no longer dependent on Mideast oil, the U.S. global objective is more focused on containing radical Islam.

             Hagel’s opposition to Iranian sanctions presents problems for U.S.-Israeli relations because Netanyahu believes Iran’s nuclear program is an “existential” threat to Israel.  U.S. officials have to patiently work with Netanyahu to let the international community deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  Threats about unilateral air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities are far too risky for Israel, the U.S. and the region.  While Netanyahu has called for “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear program, Obama and Hagel must reassure Israel that the U.S. is committed to keeping nukes out of Iranian hands.  “The more Netanyahu believes Obama is serious about preventing Iran from getting a bomb, the better they will manage their relations,” said David Makowsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  With the debt-ceiling crisis approaching, the Mideast is on Obama’s backburner.

             Obama and Netanyahu can easily mend fences by reminding each other they’re on the same page when it comes to battling Mideast terrorism.  Netanyahu knows that no president in U.S. history has been more focused on destroying radical Islam than Obama, especially with the sophisticated Aerial Surveillance and Predator Drone programs.  Netanyahu wants no friction with the White House, only reassurance that the U.S. won’t let Iran get the bomb.  “Is he going to go after Israeli-Palestinian peace talks or war with Iran given all his domestic challenges?” Miller asked.  “He [Obama] will go to extreme lengths to avoid war with Iran.”  With wars raging in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 and 2003, Obama actively seeks diplomatic solutions.  Bombing Iran’s nuclear sites offer no guarantees about stopping the bomb.  Both the U.S. and Israel have vested interests in staying on the same page.

 John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.