How We Won Too Much: What Will Obama Demand in Return?
The “backing” that the American president gave to Israel in the U.N. stems from his fear of losing the Jewish vote in the next election and even stems from his desire to “punish” the Palestinians for their obstinacy and insolence. However, soon he will demand compensation from Netanyahu.
Even after President Obama’s speech at the U.N., the American position regarding the wanted and needed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unchanged. The solution that was proposed recently in a speech that Obama gave last May: a Palestinian state within the ’67 borders with an exchange of agreed-upon territories on both sides. This position is unchanged, but in the speech on Wednesday, Obama chose to put emphasis specifically on Israeli interests. There are two main reasons for this: the approaching U.S. presidential election and the brazen defiance of the Palestinians.
Recently, and last week in particular, Obama has come under pressure because of what appears to be a significant drop in Jewish support in the United States. A Republican candidate, Bob Turner, was elected last week in special congressional elections. New York Jewish districts have consistently chosen Democratic candidates since 1923. Voters said it was a warning sign to Obama, for what they see as anti-Israeli policies. Moreover, wealthy Jewish donors are still sitting on their hands and not passing funds down to Obama on a scale reminiscent of that in the 2008 elections. The polls show a 20 percent decline in the Jewish community’s level of support for Obama compared to previous elections. Obama has also received harsh criticism from the leading Republican candidates, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, that he is “abandoning” Israel. The positive reference to Israel in the speech then is Obama’s attempt to prove to American Jews that he is still pro-Israeli.
The other consideration behind Obama’s “love of Israel” speech is Palestinian politics. They have decided that Obama is a weak president, and they tried to isolate and humiliate the U.S. by pressing the issue of a veto at the U.N. to prevent Palestine from becoming a U.N. member state. Mahmoud Abbas and his people have rejected all suggestions and requests of the U.S. to enter into negotiations with Israel and avoid events at the U.N. Obama’s speech and American commitment to veto the application are the “punishment” for this: It also stems from a desire to prove to the Palestinians and their supporters that they cannot, to such an extent, dismiss the U.S. and its policies.
There’s no doubt that recent actions of the U.S. government — which include, in addition to the actions at the U.N., the significant assistance in the rescue of Israeli security officers in Cairo — will allow Obama to ask for “compensation” or even demand it. You can bet that this compensation will come as an expression in two areas: The government will ask for — and was yesterday already beginning to get — public gratitude from Netanyahu, which could be used in upcoming elections with American Jews and Israel’s supporters. The second payment will be demanded in the political sphere. The U.S. will expect Netanyahu to obligingly accept a new suggestion for the renewal of negotiations with the Palestinians that the Americans and their allies are toiling over now and that will be submitted to both parties after the conclusion of events at the U.N. The U.S. will expect greater flexibility from Netanyahu, and after the public support that he got, it will be very difficult for him not to reciprocate.
The Americans really fear isolation. They do not want to be the only country at the Security Council that rejects the Palestinian request for statehood. For this reason, in recent days the U.S. and Israel have expended every broad diplomatic effort to mobilize a bloc in the Security Council to block the Palestinians. Obama rejects the Palestinian appeal to the U.N. and supports a solution that will only be achieved through negotiations. In this respect, the U.S. has broader support than it seems at first sight.
Relations Become Tightened
In summary, it seems that a change has begun in relations between Washington and Jerusalem, which were gloomy enough in the previous days of Netanyahu and Obama. We may reasonably assume that approaching the 2012 elections, relations between the two countries will be closer, even if differences of opinion remain; a solution will apparently wait until after the election. There’s still a significant contrast between Obama’s and Netanyahu’s worldviews, as well as in the translation of these worldviews to understand relationships that should prevail between Israel and its neighbors. In the coming year, both sides will go to great lengths to play down these differences. Of course, it will depend on what will happen in the Israeli and Palestinian territories and the Middle East in general — an area that at the moment is a hotbed of instability.
The Americans will make efforts to resume negotiations, and there is a chance that this will actually happen because the Palestinians understand that after the developments at the U.N., it is not within their abilities to impose an agreement. However, the negotiations might “get stuck” again very soon for one main reason: the maximum that Israel is offering is less than the minimum that the Palestinians are demanding. America’s main problem is that it has, to a great extent, lost the leverage to pressure and influence the position of the two parties. America still has one card on the table: It is very possible that if the Palestinians continue to provoke the U.S. and reject their proposals, there will be increased pressure in Congress to stop the economic aid that the U.S. gives to them (in the realm of $500 million per year) and to possibly take further sanctions against them.
Ultimately, however, what will affect U.S. policy above all else is the upcoming election. First and foremost, in the coming year Obama needs to prove his leadership capability — a feature he has severely lacked, according to recent public opinion polls — on domestic policy and foreign policy. On the unreliable historical background of the Middle East, Obama will first of all seek to show that he has a way — any way — and that this way is appropriate for the changing circumstances because the strategy that has led up to now has failed miserably.
Even after President Obama’s speech at the U.N., the American position regarding the wanted and needed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unchanged. The solution that was proposed recently in a speech that Obama gave last May: a Palestinian state within the ’67 borders with an exchange of agreed-upon territories on both sides. This position is unchanged, but in the speech on Wednesday, Obama chose to put emphasis specifically on Israeli interests. There are two main reasons for this: the approaching U.S. presidential election and the brazen defiance of the Palestinians.
Recently, and last week in particular, Obama has come under pressure because of what appears to be a significant drop in Jewish support in the United States. A Republican candidate, Bob Turner, was elected last week in special congressional elections. New York Jewish districts have consistently chosen Democratic candidates since 1923. Voters said it was a warning sign to Obama, for what they see as anti-Israeli policies. Moreover, wealthy Jewish donors are still sitting on their hands and not passing funds down to Obama on a scale reminiscent of that in the 2008 elections. The polls show a 20 percent decline in the Jewish community’s level of support for Obama compared to previous elections. Obama has also received harsh criticism from the leading Republican candidates, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, that he is “abandoning” Israel. The positive reference to Israel in the speech then is Obama’s attempt to prove to American Jews that he is still pro-Israeli.
The other consideration behind Obama’s “love of Israel” speech is Palestinian politics. They have decided that Obama is a weak president, and they tried to isolate and humiliate the U.S. by pressing the issue of a veto at the U.N. to prevent Palestine from becoming a U.N. member state. Mahmoud Abbas and his people have rejected all suggestions and requests of the U.S. to enter into negotiations with Israel and avoid events at the U.N. Obama’s speech and American commitment to veto the application are the “punishment” for this: It also stems from a desire to prove to the Palestinians and their supporters that they cannot, to such an extent, dismiss the U.S. and its policies.
There’s no doubt that recent actions of the U.S. government — which include, in addition to the actions at the U.N., the significant assistance in the rescue of Israeli security officers in Cairo — will allow Obama to ask for “compensation” or even demand it. You can bet that this compensation will come as an expression in two areas: The government will ask for — and was yesterday already beginning to get — public gratitude from Netanyahu, which could be used in upcoming elections with American Jews and Israel’s supporters. The second payment will be demanded in the political sphere. The U.S. will expect Netanyahu to obligingly accept a new suggestion for the renewal of negotiations with the Palestinians that the Americans and their allies are toiling over now and that will be submitted to both parties after the conclusion of events at the U.N. The U.S. will expect greater flexibility from Netanyahu, and after the public support that he got, it will be very difficult for him not to reciprocate.
The Americans really fear isolation. They do not want to be the only country at the Security Council that rejects the Palestinian request for statehood. For this reason, in recent days the U.S. and Israel have expended every broad diplomatic effort to mobilize a bloc in the Security Council to block the Palestinians. Obama rejects the Palestinian appeal to the U.N. and supports a solution that will only be achieved through negotiations. In this respect, the U.S. has broader support than it seems at first sight.
Relations Become Tightened
In summary, it seems that a change has begun in relations between Washington and Jerusalem, which were gloomy enough in the previous days of Netanyahu and Obama. We may reasonably assume that approaching the 2012 elections, relations between the two countries will be closer, even if differences of opinion remain; a solution will apparently wait until after the election. There’s still a significant contrast between Obama’s and Netanyahu’s worldviews, as well as in the translation of these worldviews to understand relationships that should prevail between Israel and its neighbors. In the coming year, both sides will go to great lengths to play down these differences. Of course, it will depend on what will happen in the Israeli and Palestinian territories and the Middle East in general — an area that at the moment is a hotbed of instability.
The Americans will make efforts to resume negotiations, and there is a chance that this will actually happen because the Palestinians understand that after the developments at the U.N., it is not within their abilities to impose an agreement. However, the negotiations might “get stuck” again very soon for one main reason: the maximum that Israel is offering is less than the minimum that the Palestinians are demanding. America’s main problem is that it has, to a great extent, lost the leverage to pressure and influence the position of the two parties. America still has one card on the table: It is very possible that if the Palestinians continue to provoke the U.S. and reject their proposals, there will be increased pressure in Congress to stop the economic aid that the U.S. gives to them (in the realm of $500 million per year) and to possibly take further sanctions against them.
Ultimately, however, what will affect U.S. policy above all else is the upcoming election. First and foremost, in the coming year Obama needs to prove his leadership capability — a feature he has severely lacked, according to recent public opinion polls — on domestic policy and foreign policy. On the unreliable historical background of the Middle East, Obama will first of all seek to show that he has a way — any way — and that this way is appropriate for the changing circumstances because the strategy that has led up to now has failed miserably.
Next article![]( "Does Obama Want to Engage in an American Version of Class Warfare?")
