”One Minute” to Israel by Obama

If Ankara and Washington weren’t at odds, maybe U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan would criticize Israel when they meet next. The Israeli government pulled a trick on both Obama and Erdoğan. Just like Erdoğan, however, Obama turned out to be a hard nut to crack.

Erdoğan’s government, mediating for Syria-Israeli peace, was shocked by the decision of the Olmert government to attack Gaza, just before an agreement was about to be reached. Naturally, there could no longer be mediation nor a process for peace. Therefore, at Davos, Erdoğan set forth his final opinion to Israel in ”one minute” and continued criticizing without reducing the level of his criticism.

Similarly, Obama’s government has still struggled to revive the peace process, which was Obama’s key pledge to the public during his political campaign and to the international community and Islamic world in his Cairo speech last June. He was even awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in advance for his expected efforts toward peace in the Middle East.

Just before the Obama administration announced that they convinced both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict to agree to peace talks, and just when Obama sent Vice President Joe Biden to Israel, Netanyahu’s government announced the construction of 1,600 new Jewish homes in disputed East Jerusalem. By this time, President Obama and his government’s efforts to initiate peace talks were undermined, just as Erdoğan had been humiliated earlier.

The U.S., Israel’s primary Western ally, can no longer tolerate this irresponsible behavior, just as Turkey, one of the closest allies to Israel’s Muslims, could not. Obama’s top aides publicly and heavily dressed down Netanyahu’s government as they have never done before. In fact, Obama and Netanyahu’s government never got along from the beginning. Claims that Obama was Muslim or that he would adopt policies to support Muslims already marked him during the presidential election. In the Middle East, Israel was the top nation that was most suspicious of Obama.

American Jews are most likely to support the Democratic Party, and 80 percent voted for Obama in 2008. But the main power of the Jewish lobby, right next to the Israeli line, has never trusted Obama. This group simply held George W. Bush in the palm of their hands. But Obama showed people that “some birds are not edible.’’ [Translators note: A Turkish saying that means you cannot impose yourself on just about anyone; there will be some people who will make a stand, hit back and thwart your desires and demands.] Though Obama stepped back from his own demands at one point, on the building of settlements in Jerusalem, the latest developments made those who try to test the limits of Obama’s peace repent. Netanyahu, the leader of the hardliner right-wing coalition of Israel, went back to his country, failing to soften Mr. Obama.

The Obama administration expressed its anger with the Israeli government through symbolic acts toward Netanyahu. For instance, despite the ongoing talks at the White House, photographs were not allowed of Netanyahu with foreign minister Hillary Clinton, let alone Mr. Obama, and a press conference was not held. But Netanyahu didn’t refrain from attending the AIPAC Annual Policy Conference in Washington. Clinton, looking straight into the eyes of a pro-Israel community that doesn’t allow anybody to speak ill of their country, sent a message that the “status quo” is unsustainable.

So, is this a matter of the parting of ways between the two governments? It is obvious that there is a critical trust problem and a crisis. It is certain that Israel tarnished its positive public image with America in its latest spoiled manner. But in the final analysis, the common interests and values of both sides is greater than the differences. Accordingly, they are trying to straighten the situation out as soon as possible.

On the other hand, the alarm bell has started to ring for Israel, which got terribly used to being immune in America. One of the most significant indicators of this is the briefing of CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus at the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on March 16. Gen. Petraeus said that the opinion of Arab-Israeli conflicts raises anti-American sentiment because of the “perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” and Arab anger adversely affects the “strength and depth’’ of the U.S. partnerships in the region.

This is the assessment of almost every objective international relations observer. But in the old days, you would not hear such things from American senior officers, especially in public. What’s more, if that person is one of the most popular generals to the American public, the seriousness of the issue comes to the point that Israel and its lobby care deeply about their public reputation. Indeed, AIPAC and American Jewish organizations tried to strangle the debate by holding on to the argument that such comments can give rise to anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiments. But I can’t tell if they were able to succeed as before.

Although the American government and public care for and support Israel, charity begins at home. The United States wants to build a relationship with the Islamic world based on mutual respect and profit, and it is beginning to realize both the actual cost and opportunity cost of opposing 1.5 billion Muslims in the progressive race for global hegemony. The argument is spreading that Palestine is the bleeding wound of the Middle East, which poisons this crucial strategic aim. Israel and its hawks must somewhat right their policy, instead of fighting against this view and trying to undermine the issue by reducing it to Obama’s party. Otherwise, even Congress, which was made yes-man through base repression and money, can hardly save Israel from losing ground in America (and the world).