Marital Crisis, But No Divorce

Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu are not only fighting more seriously than usual about Israeli settlement construction, their relationship is undergoing its first crisis. Obama will put more pressure on Israel than his predecessor did.

In private, people have retained an appreciation for differences. Anyone who hears that a couple had an argument pays little attention: that happens to the best of us. But when we hear a couple is having marital difficulties, we know it’s serious. When we hear words like disagreement, conflict or crisis indiscriminately and exaggeratedly applied to countries, it’s difficult to discern much difference between terms.

Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu are not only fighting more seriously than usual about Israeli settlement construction, their relationship is undergoing its first crisis and Obama is letting the world know all about it. When Hillary Clinton and other close advisers call Netanyahu’s behavior an “affront” or even an “insult” to the United States, they’re quoting Obama. It’s also significant when the White House says the controversial plans to construct another 1,600 Israeli housing units on Arab territory damages not only the Middle East peace process, but American-Israeli relations as well.

Frustration over the Middle East has grown in Obama’s administration. He has no illusions about the prospects for a comprehensive peace in the near future. He has to deal with a right-wing coalition Israeli government that is in part opposed to a peace with Palestinian rulers who are incapable of living peacefully themselves. Even if Fatah in the West Bank were ready for compromise, Hamas in Gaza wouldn’t feel obligated to agree. Obama’s goal is far more modest: He wants to open and continue a dialog on which to build someday when conditions improve. He encourages all sides to act in good faith; the Israelis by stopping settlement expansion, the Palestinians by cracking down on radical extremists, and the neighboring Arab states by acting as a broker between Fatah and Hamas, and by ending weapons smuggling to Gaza.

His mixture of principled demands and flexible pragmatism has caused irritation. He wants Israel to halt settlement expansion, but refuses to make it a pre-condition to negotiations because that would give Netanyahu’s coalition partners an excuse to impede negotiations. To many observers, it appears that Obama gave in. While he was successful in halting settlement expansion in the West Bank, that doesn’t hold true for Jerusalem. There, the disagreement is escalating — admittedly more due to the timing of the announcement than the substance of it. The plan was made public as Vice President Biden made an official visit to Israel. President Obama considered it a slap in the face, thus the sharp reaction.

Many in Europe are asking why Obama just doesn’t simply force Netanyahu to cooperate. He certainly has the means to increase pressure; namely, the threat of cutting off military and financial aid to Israel. But what would be gained by threatening Israel as long as the Palestinians aren’t prepared to negotiate? The big stick won’t be brought out until there’s agreement in sight. One shouldn’t overestimate Obama’s powers: He’s not a substitute for the desire for peace. He won’t be able to help the two sides over the hurdles until the leaders and the people on both sides really want consensus.

The peace process has yet to reach that stage. Obama will continue to threaten and put more pressure on Israel than his predecessor did. But the usual end to such an impasse in private life — divorce — is simply out of the question. The vast majority of Christian Americans consider Israel an indispensable ally and there’s no Arab nation that occupies a similar spot. The lack of modernization in the Muslim world remains a huge disappointment for Americans.

Obama knows that, and so does Netanyahu.