Obama and Netanyahu

The strategic political and military coordination between Israel and the U.S. is, and has always been, deeper and more complex than it appears in the media. This strategic coordination has never once been connected to elected officials on either side. Instead, it has been determined by the greater interests and responsibilities of the higher security and political apparatuses. So the debate with America on possible aggression toward Iran was started by Netanyahu in large part to stick the nose of the Israeli far right into upcoming American elections.

‏In recent days we have seen an increase in official Israeli statements that seem to indicate a rift between the two parties regarding Iran, to the extent that Netanyahu’s government put forth a number of demands for the Obama administration to appease Israel. Further, the language used by the Israeli media in publishing these statements gave them an arrogant, if not confrontational, tone.

‏High ranking military and political officials were quick to respond, clearly indicating U.S. opposition to any Israeli strike on Iran in the near future.

‏Regardless of the likelihood of an outbreak of hostilities, this sharper tone toward the Obama administration at this particular time is essentially an attempt by the Israeli far right and other Zionist organizations to stick their noses in the upcoming elections. This is all the more clear if we consider this apparent rift with the Obama administration, along with Netanyahu’s attempts in recent weeks to demonstrate some sort of mutual understanding between himself and Republican candidate Mitt Romney during his visit to Israel.

‏Despite the fact that American Jews make up roughly 2 percent of the U.S. electorate, they have effectively multiplied this percentage through their significantly higher political participation in comparison to other voting blocs. Further, American politicians have grown accustomed to taking the Jewish vote into consideration — not because of their power at the polls, but because of their considerable financial support. They must also consider the sizable non-Jewish population that supports Israel, including fundamentalist Christian groups.

‏But the far-right Israeli position still opposes that of the vast majority of American Jews. Despite a pro-Romney campaign funded by Netanyahu’s wealthy friends, 67 percent of the Jewish vote still supports Obama. This underlines a historical situation that consistently concerns the Israeli right, who is always convinced that the interests of Israel and the Zionist movement are more in line with the Republican Party, despite the fact that we don’t see any considerable differences between the two parties regarding Middle Eastern issues and the Palestinian issue.

‏The Israeli right’s positions regarding the value of supporting the Republican Party have strengthened over the past two decades, especially after the end of the Cold War. 20 years ago there was talk that the circumstances in the region had diminished Israel’s strategic value to greater U.S. interests in the Middle East. Over the years this notion has almost completely disappeared.

‏But the Israeli right is afraid that what first appeared 20 years ago might reoccur soon — and with more force. They don’t want to gamble and believe that a majority of American oil “cartel” owners support the Republican Party. So they consider the Republican Party’s view of the Middle East and the “importance of Israel” more in line with the Israeli right than with the Democratic Party in respect to the future of Israel.

‏Despite the fact that Netanyahu’s ploy regarding the American elections is more obvious than ever, it is unlikely that this will lead to any tangible changes in the American administration’s inclinations toward Netanyahu’s government and Israel in general. Even if Obama is elected for a second term, as was mentioned earlier, the greater interests are too large to be dictated by individuals on either side.