The Real Worldview of Obama
President Barack Obama is a politician and therefore zigzags his way through issues as he deems necessary, and as such he is only interested in pursuing an improvement in U.S.-Israeli relations insofar they fit into his agenda.
A few weeks ago, Obama announced that he intends to run for office a second time in November 2012. It is still early to assess what will happen a year and a half from now, but if Obama can stabilize the American economy, as Bill Clinton did at the end of his first term, he stands a good chance at re-election.
Whether he wins or not, Obama will continue to govern with a pragmatic approach that advances his country’s best interests as he sees them. As of this week, when he began campaigning for the 2012 elections, this approach has only grown stronger, and will become a key component in determining his policies. This is how his attitude toward the struggle for freedom in the Arab world should be interpreted, as well as toward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Present and future Israeli leaders must understand that and respond accordingly.
The crisis in Libya and the U.S. attacks against Gadhafi’s forces have led many commentators from around the world to try and label Obama’s doctrine of foreign relations based on his actions so far. As Obama continues to vacillate, his opponents comment cynically and ask, “Why doesn’t the American president intervene in Syria or Bahrain, where large numbers of protesters demanding reforms have been killed, or even call for a change in their systems of government and for democracy?”
Are the people in these places not entitled to receive support like the rebels in Libya received?
Obama Does Not Need to Be Consistent
Where is the consistency? Commentators ask, “Whatever happened to the ideology that he was so proud of during his successful campaign in 2008?”
It was proved at the beginning of the crisis in Egypt that when it comes to Barack Obama, sentiments are not very important (just ask Mubarak). Only the interests of the country he stands at the head of and his personal interests count for anything. Obama is a pragmatist, a realist, and an astute politician. Pragmatic leaders need not worry about being consistent — rather, their focus and sole purpose is to produce the best for their countries under difficult conditions.
When Obama realized that Mubarak’s regime was inevitably going to collapse, Obama had no problem abandoning him. Therefore, to all the commentators and cynics trying to pin Obama down — pointing to his lack of consistency — this in no way reflects his style of governing. Obama’s pragmatic style occasionally works well for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who previously feared heavy pressure from America that would obligate Israel to proceed with meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians.
The Jewish voice and especially Jewish money play an important role in domestic politics of the U.S. Both Obama and Netanyahu understand this quite well. Therefore, as long as Israel and the Jews are an electoral and financial asset, Obama the politician will support Israel, as he did recently at the Security Council meeting where Obama vetoed a condemnation of Israel over its construction in the territories.
Netanyahu Cannot Get Too Comfortable in His Position
Netanyahu, for his part, will try to tough it out during this period that remains until the elections in the U.S. without paying too high a price for eluding calls to take concrete steps toward a settlement. On the flip side, with Obama’s lack of care it stands to reason that if he feels it necessary to pressure Israel in order to protect American interests or, for that matter, to hasten the U.S. pullout of its armed forces from Iraq and/or Afghanistan (and fulfill his promise to voters in 2008) he will not hesitate to do so.
As for Netanyahu, he cannot get too comfortable in his position. As long as Obama is president, the prime minister of Israel, whether it is Netanyahu or someone else, will have to adjust himself and his government’s policy in accordance with the American president’s agenda, which is neither consistent nor sentimental. This is the true doctrine of Barack Obama.
A few weeks ago, Obama announced that he intends to run for office a second time in November 2012. It is still early to assess what will happen a year and a half from now, but if Obama can stabilize the American economy, as Bill Clinton did at the end of his first term, he stands a good chance at re-election.
Whether he wins or not, Obama will continue to govern with a pragmatic approach that advances his country’s best interests as he sees them. As of this week, when he began campaigning for the 2012 elections, this approach has only grown stronger, and will become a key component in determining his policies. This is how his attitude toward the struggle for freedom in the Arab world should be interpreted, as well as toward the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Present and future Israeli leaders must understand that and respond accordingly.
The crisis in Libya and the U.S. attacks against Gadhafi’s forces have led many commentators from around the world to try and label Obama’s doctrine of foreign relations based on his actions so far. As Obama continues to vacillate, his opponents comment cynically and ask, “Why doesn’t the American president intervene in Syria or Bahrain, where large numbers of protesters demanding reforms have been killed, or even call for a change in their systems of government and for democracy?”
Are the people in these places not entitled to receive support like the rebels in Libya received?
Obama Does Not Need to Be Consistent
Where is the consistency? Commentators ask, “Whatever happened to the ideology that he was so proud of during his successful campaign in 2008?”
It was proved at the beginning of the crisis in Egypt that when it comes to Barack Obama, sentiments are not very important (just ask Mubarak). Only the interests of the country he stands at the head of and his personal interests count for anything. Obama is a pragmatist, a realist, and an astute politician. Pragmatic leaders need not worry about being consistent — rather, their focus and sole purpose is to produce the best for their countries under difficult conditions.
When Obama realized that Mubarak’s regime was inevitably going to collapse, Obama had no problem abandoning him. Therefore, to all the commentators and cynics trying to pin Obama down — pointing to his lack of consistency — this in no way reflects his style of governing. Obama’s pragmatic style occasionally works well for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who previously feared heavy pressure from America that would obligate Israel to proceed with meaningful peace talks with the Palestinians.
The Jewish voice and especially Jewish money play an important role in domestic politics of the U.S. Both Obama and Netanyahu understand this quite well. Therefore, as long as Israel and the Jews are an electoral and financial asset, Obama the politician will support Israel, as he did recently at the Security Council meeting where Obama vetoed a condemnation of Israel over its construction in the territories.
Netanyahu Cannot Get Too Comfortable in His Position
Netanyahu, for his part, will try to tough it out during this period that remains until the elections in the U.S. without paying too high a price for eluding calls to take concrete steps toward a settlement. On the flip side, with Obama’s lack of care it stands to reason that if he feels it necessary to pressure Israel in order to protect American interests or, for that matter, to hasten the U.S. pullout of its armed forces from Iraq and/or Afghanistan (and fulfill his promise to voters in 2008) he will not hesitate to do so.
As for Netanyahu, he cannot get too comfortable in his position. As long as Obama is president, the prime minister of Israel, whether it is Netanyahu or someone else, will have to adjust himself and his government’s policy in accordance with the American president’s agenda, which is neither consistent nor sentimental. This is the true doctrine of Barack Obama.