Thumbscrews for Netanyahu

Obama wants to bring Netanyahu into line: It is high time.

Barack Obama is the first American president in a long time to acknowledge that America’s interests don’t necessarily always coincide with Israel’s, and that Israel’s latest hard-line government is now actually acting against America’s interests in the Near East. That fact was brought home to Israel’s new prime minister of six weeks when he visited Obama in Washington.

It’s historical irony that it was Netanyahu, of all people, who put together the most aggressive and obstinate Israeli government since Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon.

At their meeting, however, Obama and Netanyahu both struggled to maintain appearances, because they depend on one another. Without America’s help, Israel would, to all intents and purposes, be isolated. The United States is Israel’s most important ally; actually the U.S. is Israel’s only ally of any importance, whatsoever. The countries of the European Union count for little with Israel (and that’s as it should be). Because Israel owes its very existence to the U.S., America can’t very well turn its back on it. If an American president were to even consider doing so, he would be committing political suicide. The pro-Israeli American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) openly admits to being a pro-Israel lobby, and it has enormous influence. More importantly, Obama would be unable to count on the Democratic Party, because many members of Congress would be running the risk of losing their seats in the next election if they supported him.

Gradually, however, the atmosphere is changing. People within the government now realize that it is America’s one-sided support for Israel that makes any agreement with the Arabs impossible. And things are changing across the nation itself: If the most recent opinion polls are accurate, a majority of Americans no longer sees U.S.-Israeli interests as congruent; they support a two-state solution, they support the right of return for displaced Palestinians (or at least compensation for them) and they are in favor of allowing Hamas to take part in peace negotiations.

Curiously, polls in Israel agree with those in America – despite the fact that Netanyahu and his semi-Fascist coalition partner, Avigdor Lieberman, won the last election, primarily because they were successful in discrediting all other candidates. Obama, as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, can approach this question only with that fact in mind, daring to speak plainly to the Zionist leadership. Netanyahu is doing the only thing he can at the moment: namely, to keep smiling in a situation that he really doesn’t like very much and keep playing for time, dodging questions, changing the subject, and making verbal concessions that he immediately withdraws. In short, he keeps desperately maneuvering, hoping to outlast Obama’s momentum.

That’s why it’s important for Obama to keep up the pressure. There are a few points that make up the core of the issue: the question of a two-state solution, relations with Iran, Israeli settlement policy, the Gaza situation and the timetable for negotiations. Obama and the important members of his cabinet have come out in favor of the two-state solution, creating a sovereign Palestinian state on those areas annexed by Israel in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War. Netanyahu is fighting this proposal with every ounce of his strength, because he says it endangers Israeli security interests.

What he would do is ensure an improved self-government for Palestinians, an improvement in their quality of life and economic advancement. But three Israeli conditions would remain, even for a self-governing Palestinian state: Israeli settlements must be interspersed through the Palestinian area; the external Palestinian borders would by controlled by the Israeli army; and Israel would control security, even inside the Palestinian state. That would be something like a homeland security policy for native Palestinians, who would really have no right to live in their own homeland.

Additionally, there’s the question of relations with Iran. Israel has made clear that a nuclear Iran, whether it possesses nuclear weapons or not, is unacceptable. This, despite the fact that Israel itself – as the whole world already knows – became a nuclear power illegally. That would require a change in U.S. policy, not a clandestine policy, but one officially declared by the government.

Netanyahu would prefer to isolate Iran totally, with sanctions and in an emergency situation with implementation of “the military option.” Even considering well-understood Israeli interests, one comes to the conclusion that that would be a kamikaze policy. But since David Ben Gurion’s era, rational thinking has never been a strong point of Israeli policy. But it goes beyond the nuclear question: Israel, basically, is unwilling to accept Iran’s geopolitical ambitions to become the leading regional power. Here, Israel’s stance is aligned with most Arab states in the region, who see their own stability endangered by Iran.

The third point addresses the settlements. Undaunted, Netanyahu continues to build and expand. Jerusalem, especially, is to be gradually cleansed of Arabs. On that point, Netanyahu’s policy doesn’t differ from that of his predecessors. Beyond that, Israel is to retain complete decision-making powers, including the military option, on anything it subjectively considers necessary for security. Finally, we come to the subject of Gaza and Lebanon. The goal – also shared by Netanyahu’s rivals, including Tzipi Livni – is for a contiguous Israel, stretching from the Mediterranean to Jordan, with permanent military and economic superiority over its Arab neighbors. Within that framework, further details could be worked out

In the long run, that won’t be enough. All factors, not least the demographics, militate against Zionist ideology, i.e., Israeli Realpolitik. It’s common knowledge in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that that’s the reason for the construction of The Wall, or if one prefers, the protective barrier. President Obama, who truly has his plate full of problems already, will find this to be the most difficult challenge of his presidency. He has to get Israel on board with geopolitical realpolitik, and that may not look anything like current Israeli national policy.

One can only imagine how complicated it’s likely to become.