Netanyahu and Obama

Since Obama’s speech in Cairo, Israel has found itself in a pickle. Israel has come up with responses reflecting the special relationship with America, which has been riddled with moments of fog. Netanyahu’s response was embodied in the proposal of a crippled Palestinian state with no army and no arms “because that is the way to guarantee the security of Israel.” And because the prevailing opinion in America, seen over the course of several administrations, is that the security of Israel is the number one factor in the Middle East, the Israeli prime minister turned towards Iran with great caution, for it was feared that a strong attack on Ahmadinejad would lead to his gaining ground and support against his opponents.

Netanyahu reminded America that the Iranian nuclear danger threatens America itself and demanded that Obama give priority to preventing an Iranian attack. He also expressed his disagreement with Obama over the issue of the Holocaust, saying that if Israel had been established as a country before the Holocaust, then it would not have taken place. This stands in opposition to Obama’s view that the Holocaust is the chief reason for the establishment of Israel.

The pro-Israeli media commented on the underlying struggle between the naïve American president who has not yet studied the particulars of the world’s problems and has not gotten involved in its details, and a prime minister raised among cadres of cunning and political conspiracies. And given the Obama administration’s shine for the two-state solution, Netanyahu rushed to announce his readiness to establish a state bordering Israel along the lines of Basotho, Swaziland, Lesotho and other cantons established in the South African Union under racial minority rule, which are still not free of this system despite the liberation of South Africa!

The Obama administration welcomed this very point in its speech and described it positively, even though it was loaded with impossible Israeli demands. For example, the idea of Jerusalem not granting the return of refugees and security authority over the new nation has been rejected with disdain by most Arabs. This American reception was considered by the followers of Netanyahu as a successful strike because it prevented a crisis between America and Israel.

Netanyahu was recalling Likud’s [Israel’s most prominent center-right political party] role in the peace process and its readiness for understanding with America about the settlements. This was obviously a form of political spin. He announced that he will order a moratorium on building new settlements and confiscating more land, and he didn’t refer to the usual Israeli expression “natural growth” – an expression that Washington parrots – as justification for building more settlements. The Israeli prime minister sent an implicit message to Obama, informing him of the necessity of Palestinian submission to all of Israel’s so-called “security demands,” given that the U.S. Congress and American Jews have succeeded in making that a fait accompli beyond discussion. What that means is that a Palestinian refusal would undermine Obama’s ability to pressure Israel.

Netanyahu’s greatest achievement is in convincing the Israelis that he represents the home base and the center, for he claims that this is what Israelis want, especially in the Kadima opposition party. In short, the Israeli prime minister threw the ball into the court of the Palestinians who had refused his hardline demands, despite their realization that America supports these demands.

Observers see that there is a difference between what was thrown and what landed on the negotiating table, and that any tangible departure would disrupt the ruling coalition or alliance. Observers also believe that Kadima joining the coalition would be better if it were possible for these negotiations to begin.