Netanyahu and Obama: Closer Than They Seem

In a Jerusalem decorated with the Italian flag for the visit of president Giorgio Napolitano and the elite of the Italian and Israeli writers together in an unprecedented symposium by the Cultural Institute of Tel Aviv, the question that is lurking behind the diplomatic wings is this: how much truth is there in the thesis supported by the media when America voted for the future by electing Obama, Israel (probably) electing next February 10 Bibi Netanyahu will once again vote for the past?

While in Washington the prime minister Olmert, disheartened but still in office, will have a “last supper” with his friend Bush, like him disheartened but still in power, in Israel they are waiting with trepidation to see in what way Obama, speaking on the Middle East, could influence the course of the local electoral campaign.

For the moment, Obama is silent. If he chooses the retired general James L. Jones (ex commander of Nato and currently special envoy in Israel and in Palestine with the mandate of following the “nonexistent” progress of the initiative presented by Bush a year ago in Annapolis) this would mean that the future strategy of Washington will follow the outline proposed by two people critical of Israel. These are the two former presidential advisors for National Security – Zibigniew Brzezinski (former advisor of Carter) and Brent Scowcroft (former advisor of Bush senior).

When analyzing a book which they recently published, the Financial Times sums up their strategy in four points: no to the return of Palestinian refugees in Israel: a Jerusalem that is not divided with a Palestinian capital near or situated in the old city including the control of the Mosque of Aqsa (the third holy place of Islam) and special status for Sacred Places; an Israeli evacuation of the territories with a return to the armistice lines of 1967 with an exchange of the small zones to permit the majority of the Jewish settlements to be situated within the definitive borders of the State: a de-militarized Palestinian state with an international force spread along the Jordan valley (preferably of NATO and the United States according to general Jones).

It would be a plan closer to the positions of Kadima than of Likud. But an eventual victory of Nethanyahu would not worry Washington too much, conscious of his realism and his ambitions even if they contrast with his ideological positions. It would not be the first time that the right, once it got to power, would adopt the policy of the left. Without taking into account that this sort of plan would boast of being in sync with that of the Saudi peace and the Arab League and respectful of resolution 242 of the Security Council in 1967 (peace in exchange for territory). Considerations that have prompted Hamas to refuse to meet with the delegates of al Fatah in Cairo hoping for a victory of Likud that would put an end to the attempts of Kadima to agree with the president of the Palestinian authority Mahmud Abbus who is as despised in Gaza as Olmert is in Israel.