President Barack Obama has an Israel problem. Almost three years in, the president still can’t decide whether he wants to pander to the Israeli prime minister or pressure him. The approach of the 2012 elections makes the former almost mandatory; the president’s reelection may make the latter possible. Buckle your seat belts. Unless Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu find a way to cooperate on a big venture that makes both of them look good, and in a way that allows each to invest in the other, the U.S.-Israel relationship may be in for a bumpy ride.
The president’s view of Israel is situated in two fundamental realities. The first is structural and is linked to the way Obama sees the world; the second is more situational and is driven by his view of Netanyahu and Israeli policies. Together they have created and sustained a deep level of frustration bordering on anger.
Unlike his two predecessors, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Obama isn’t in love with the idea of Israel. Intellectually he understands and supports the pro-Israeli trope — small democratic nation with dark past confronts huge existential threats — but it’s really a head thing.
Clinton and Bush were enamored emotionally with Israel’s story and the prime ministers who narrated it. Clinton sat at the feet of Yitzhak Rabin — the authentic leader and hero in peace and war — as a student sits in thrall of a brilliant professor (some said like a son to a father). “I had come to love him,” the former president wrote in his memoirs, “as I had rarely loved another man.”
And Bush 43, though often frustrated in the extreme with Ariel Sharon, loved his stories of biblical history and more contemporary war tales. Bush reacted — as he did on so many issues — from his gut, certainly when it came to Israel’s security. While flying with Sharon over Israel’s narrow waist, the then-governor said, “We have driveways in Texas longer than that.”
The main source of Obama’s view of Israel lies in his broader assessment of conflict and how problems are resolved. Obama didn’t get his vision of Israel from the movie “Exodus,” in which the Israelis are cowboys and the Arabs are Indians. Nor does he have Clinton’s Southern Baptist Bible sensibilities or Bush’s evangelical ones relating to Israel as the Holy Land.
Obama’s views came from another place: his own logic, the university environment in which he developed intellectually and his own moral sensibilities. And according to this view, the Arab-Israeli dispute isn’t some kind of morality play that pits the forces of good against the forces of darkness. Instead, it’s a more complex tale, not of heroes and villains but of a conflict between two rights and two just causes. It’s also a conflict that is vital to American interests. And those interests are being threatened by the divide between those who want a solution and are serious about moving toward one, and those who aren’t serious about finding a solution and throw up obstacles. After three years, the president has clearly placed the Israelis in the latter category and the Palestinians in the former.
The tendency to look at Israel analytically instead of emotionally, and to view the conflict through a national-interest prism rather than some sort of moral filter, dovetails with Obama’s poisonous relationship with Netanyahu. Obama doesn’t like him, doesn’t trust him and views him as a con man. The Israeli prime minister has frustrated and embarrassed Obama and gotten in the way of the president’s wildly exaggerated hopes for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he’s been pursuing with more enthusiasm than viable strategy since his inauguration. To make matters worse, when the president went after a settlements freeze, Netanyahu called his bluff and Obama backed down — a terrible humiliation.
It’s worth pointing out that tensions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers are fairly common, particularly between Democratic presidents and tough Likud prime ministers. Two things tend to ameliorate them, but only temporarily. The first is a joint project, usually an Arab-Israeli peacemaking one, in which both sides invest in the other and come out looking good. Examples include Jimmy Carter and Menachem Begin’s peace treaty with Egypt; Bush 41 and Yitzhak Shamir’s Madrid peace conference; Sharon and Bush 43’s “war on terror.”
The second fix doesn’t so much ameliorate the problem as eliminate it. That would be the political defeat of one or the other and the emergence of a new cast of characters that can create a more functional relationship. This is precisely what happened in the case of Bush 41 and Shamir — Clinton and Rabin emerged to take their place. In the case of Carter and Begin, Ronald Reagan became president — one of the most pro-Israel presidents in American history. Even so, he too wrangled with Begin, although the American-Israeli relationship got stronger.
What’s so intriguing about the near future is that neither a viable joint project nor a change in leaders may take place. The Iran nuclear issue is a wild card in all of this. The impact of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites can’t be gamed out, but a pretty good case can be made that the consequences would bind the U.S. and Israel closer together, particularly in the event of a tough Iranian response.
In the end, the Barack-Bibi relationship is likely headed south because the trust and capacity to give each other the benefit of the doubt has long ago evaporated. If both are still in office in 2013 when the political dust settles, the game of gotcha will continue. Newly empowered but still wary and suspicious, neither will be in the mood to kiss and make up.
Without some common enterprise to bind them together, and with a great many issues to drive them apart (settlements, the peace process), relations will get worse, taking their toll on the U.S.-Israel relationship; Israel’s security; American interests; and, for certain, any remaining hope for a two-state solution.
• Miller, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, served as a Middle East negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations.
Comments (26)
Add commentIntrospective?
One dosn't like the traits in ones self that is seen in another. obama is not trustworthy, he also took an oath to protect the constitution, yep! The very one he is now shredding. Remember, his first 6 years he was raised Muslim. Now that Senate Bill 1867 has become law (signed on New Years Eve) one must wonder about the future of OUR country. And, I , for one do not trust obama!
Cut off the juice
If Israel continues to thwart American interests, cut off the billions in aid that we send them. Why are we giving Israel so much taxpayer money when we are headed for a cliff ourselves?
Incidentally, Israel provides free national health insurance for every citizen. And we're giving THEM foreign aid? Maybe the flow should be reversing for a change.
Wrong, Jeri
It is free to them. Because WE are paying for it with our billions of foreign aid payments to them.
And we are going broke. Go figure.
Israel is an anachronism
Israel and its leaders live in a world that has since passed. It has imported a quaint Victorian separatist project into a world that has moved on. The very idea of a “Jewish state”—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded—is an anachronism.
England, France, Germany, virtually all nations are evolving under the onslaught of immigration. They are all coping with what is our experiment: the melting pot. Except Israel. It is an oddity among modern nations not because it is a state in which one community—Jews—is set above others, in an age when that sort of state has no place.
Because of its occupation of the lands taken in 1967, Israel today faces 3 unattractive choices. It can give up the land and return to the 1967 state borders within which Jews constitute a clear majority, and thus remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, but with a vague community of second-class Arab citizens. It can stay and grant citizen ship to the Arabs which will eventually out-number them and vote out the Jewish State or risk creating an even larger population of vague second-class Arab citizens. Lastly, keep the land but get rid of the overwhelming majority of the Arab population: either by forcible expulsion or else by starving them of land and livelihood, leaving them no option but to go into exile.
What options do you think they are choosing?
Any wonder why the mistrust from our President?
I believe:
Lat’ I believe Jeremiah was referring to the U.S. when he stated “I'm all for it latt...If it was "Free", But it's NOT!” However, I can think of several countries where we should cut off aid. Pakistan for starters. Also I’m on Alaskabobc’s side I don’t trust BO and never have.
"The question is whether the
"The question is whether the parties involved today know and believe my mythology."
Fixed that sentence for you.
No it doesn't. The Bible is a
No it doesn't. The Bible is a collection of stories, some of them dating back to Sumerian times. Some of the events depicted are dramatized historical events, while many of them are older stories dating from back when the Hebrews were still polytheists.
If the Bible is your only source of information for the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East, you are supremely lazy.
There is no lasting solution
There is no lasting solution because one faction (the radical Islamists, like Hamas and Hezbollah, etc.) want the Jewish faction eliminated. Kind of like the Holocaust.
How does Netanyahu negotiate with that mind-set? At this point, Israel plays defense for their very survival.
As far as Obama - what's left to say. The "man-child" got slapped down by the adult in the room and he's having a tantrum. Why else do you think he encouraged the Arab Spring?
That and he's been steeped in hatred of the Jewish people his whole life - from his anti-colonial Kenyan "father" to his grandfather, to his mother, to Frank Marshall Davis, to Bill Ayers, to Columbia and Harvard professors, to George Soros - should I go on? It's in his DNA - he knows nothing else but to hate the Jews.
It's very sad...I still have hope that Israel views the rest of us Americans as their strongest ally.
@hitch - you're just wrong about your view of Israel. There are many Christians and Muslims that live in peace with the Jewish people in Israel.
As far as Europe's immigration - they're struggling with the huge influx of Muslims. Remember the burning cars in France last summer?
PP, you are showing your ignorance ............
again.
@justlivin: I don't think I
@justlivin: I don't think I am. I think your friend up above is showing his, because he is apparently unaware of the history of the Bible itself. Hint: it's not the history it gives itself, just as the history of Greek and Norse myths are different than what the myths themselves say.
And then to have the gall to apply an unfounded belief to a very real present day situation? Total BS. People like him are the problem.
It's always so easy for the
It's always so easy for the progressives to just dismiss everything, whether it's the Bible or the Constitution. Basically, anything they don't happen to agree with or that doesn't further their agenda gets dismissed. Facts and history are funny things.
And how come they're all experts on the Bible?
It must be sooooo hard to be soooooo smart.
@Calypso: we're experts on
@Calypso: we're experts on the Bible because we've read it.
Also, George Soros is a Jew who survived the Holocaust. Quick--edit your post before people realize you're full of it! Nevermind, it's probably too late for that.
ArTCLE
The State of Israel does not want peace in the area.
calypso
My view of Israel is spot on.. The issue, as I thought I succinctly set out, is that Israel occupies certain tracks of territory (West Bank and Gaza Strip) in which the Arab is the majority. For the most part they have never been offered Israeli citizenship b/c under int’l law it is an occupied territory. Thus, the 3 unattractive scenarios I laid. Review at your leisure. Are there non-jew citizens in Israel proper that live peacefully. Yes, albeit in a de facto second class status.
The demographic migration into Western Europe is not Muslim phenomena, but rather one of pervious held colonies or allied affiliations (England: India, Nigeria, Gambia, South Af, Carib, and Pakistan/France: Algeria, Morocco/Germany: Turkey and Namibia). Yes some are Muslim, but not necessarily a majori
The majority of Europe's
The majority of Europe's immigrants are absolutely Muslims. With the immigrants' higher birth rates they soon will become a majority in some areas.
@hitch, I'm guessing your definition of "second class" might vary greatly from mine. Browsing through google, "second class" seems to be the meme when discussing Arabs in Israel. Non Jewish people in Israel are allowed to vote and even hold office in that democracy.
@p - here's a quick history on Soros.
As a Jewish teenager born in Hungary, to save himself from the Nazis, he helped round up fellow Hungarians to send to the death camps.
When he grew tired of that, he lived with a government official and helped confiscate property from fellow Jews.
What a guy, huh? And he's said that he doesn't regret his actions. So there you have it...watch your back because he's not loving on Americans much either.
Hey Calypso: it's called
Hey Calypso: it's called "Pajamas Media" because you'd have to have just woken up to believe any of it.
In reality, George Soros lived in a Nazi-occupied country and really had two choices: resist and die, or do as he was told and possibly live. It's too bad a 14 year old kid couldn't be as brave as I'm sure you would be, Calypso (because we know how courageous you are), but that's the reality.
But what do you care about facts? You can't go against your programming, which is apparently to lie at almost every opportunity.
anti colonialism strikes again!
I can't believe calypso has once again referenced anti-colonialism as being a bad characteristic. Again, let's not forget that the American Revolution was primarily a revolt against British Colonial rule.
agreed with PP
It's funny that most people I know who are critical of the Bible have indeed actually read both the Old and New Testaments. And often many of the people who most ardently advocate for the Bible's infallibility haven't even read it...
"And they will be glad to believe our answer [the Bible], for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves." -Fyodor Dostoevsky
Obama is smart...
not to trust Netanyahu - that yahu is the main obstacle to resolving the Palestinian independence problem, and achieving a lasting peace, with Palestine, at least.
Oh, and PP, Calypso isn't lying... he really believes that cr*p!
Interesting dialogue.
Arguments on both sides add up to one answer. There is no solution. The Bible, Torah, Quran, and history from all sources confirm the half brother relationship between Israel and Ishmael. Whether by virtue of prophecy or eternal grudge, this will be an ongoing conflict. Be it from the son of Sarah or the son of Hagar, they will always be at each others throats. Israel, being from the womb of the legitimate wife of Abraham will claim the birthright of the promised land. Ishmael, from the womb of Abe's concubine and firstborn as well, will always be a thorn in Israel's side and claim the birthright on the basis of seniority. So, the son according to promise and the son according to flesh continue to be at odds with each other. By prophecy, they both will be around till the last go-round because they both have a covenant with the same God. By history, they each believe that they are the one. The war does look like it will produce blood up to the horses' bridles. And that blood will come from the allies of both. So anyone else that steps into the mix is cannon fodder. Hope I'm on the right side. You should to.
you are all missing the point
THERE HAS NEVER, EVER BEEN A PLACE CALLED PALESTINE! In the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the west bank and E. Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt. Even before that, the Ottoman Turks controlled everything. The precious United Nations drew the pre 1967 borders and the place was called Trans-Jordan. It wasn't until the Six-Day War in 1967 when Egypt, Jordan and Syria attacked that Israel beat back a half-million Muslims from three sides all by herself in six days, all the while the country was less than 20 years old. "I want them on my side". For Sure!
@knapsack
Your point is not lost on me.
I think Hitch has it right on...
When I saw 'W' get into office at the same time Israel got extreme right wing leadership I thought 'OMG!' - Of course it always takes time for big changes to set in, but 10 years later we have Arab Spring at the same time the U.S. has a major military and financial roll back. Israel is in a jamb. They are going to have to go through changes, and I don't feel sorry for them at all. As a American policy, we can probably wait and see, and Israel is on the hot seat. Unless Israel tries to do something dumb and try to start another war or something. I would like to think that all America, Israel, and Iran will do is rattle their sabers and talk big. Really, old fashioned wars are really outdated now. It's just that everybody has to figure that out. The conflict that Israel has always created will not fit in the future world. Shucks.
I think Hitch has it right on...
When I saw 'W' get into office at the same time Israel got extreme right wing leadership I thought 'OMG!' - Of course it always takes time for big changes to set in, but 10 years later we have Arab Spring at the same time the U.S. has a major military and financial roll back. Israel is in a jamb. They are going to have to go through changes, and I don't feel sorry for them at all. As a American policy, we can probably wait and see, and Israel is on the hot seat. Unless Israel tries to do something dumb and try to start another war or something. I would like to think that all America, Israel, and Iran will do is rattle their sabers and talk big. Really, old fashioned wars are really outdated now. It's just that everybody has to figure that out. The conflict that Israel has always created will not fit in the future world. Shucks.
The idea of the 2-state
The idea of the 2-state solution dates back to as early as 1948 in order to grant both Jewish and Arab residents of Trans-Jordan separate but equal nations. It hasn't worked in 64 years.
Yeah, it's kind of hard to
Yeah, it's kind of hard to have any sort of peace when one side is constantly lobbing rockets into your schools and playgrounds and blowing up your buses and killing your people.
And where exactly would the anti-semites like the Jewish people to live? No where is the answer because they want them extinguished from the Earth.
It's that crazy, radical Islamic religion thing...