Israel and Obama’s America

After only four months, Israel’s government is in trouble. Yesterday, the Lieberman case exploded and a Foreign Affairs minister with ties to the extreme right party was charged by the police for corruption, financial fraud and laundering. Over the heads of the other two major partners of Netanyahu’s coalitions, the Labore, the orthodox Shas, hangs the risk of a split, which would cause the majority of the government to dissolve.

More importantly, today, the state of the relationship between Israel and Barack Obama’s America is way more politically dangerous than the coalition’s internal problems. In fact, for the first time in over 18 years, Washington’s government has Israel’s government looking down the barrel.

Like President Obama said soon after the settlement, the U.S. is no longer going to tolerate the continued Israeli expansion of Jewish colonies in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. It’s no longer a matter of vague exhortations like those of the Bush years, when Condoleezza Rice recommended freezing the construction of new buildings because they didn’t help the peace-building process.

Now the music is different and the American requests are real. The settlements are illegitimate, they impede an agreement with the Palestinians, and so, from here on out, the government of Jerusalem shall not place a single brick on land that will be part of the Palestinian State in the future.

Washington’s political pressure is increasingly assertive. Last week, four of Obama’s messengers were in Jerusalem, including the negotiator between the Israelis and Palestinians, George Mitchell; Defense Secretary Robert Gates; the counselor for national security, James Jones; and the Iranian expert at the White House, Dennis Ross. Though they also talked about Iran with Israel’s government, all four insisted that the expansion of the colonies must be stopped immediately and completely.

This explains the posters hoisted during the Israeli right wing’s demonstrations. Over there, Barack Obama is always and only called by his middle name, Hussein, to denounce his descent from a Kenyan father. Other posters portray him with a turban around his head. Other say, “the Arab that the Americans call president.” This must be due to his color and demagogy, as no other U.S. president has received such treatment in the Israeli squares.

When the new American administration declared that they would no longer ignore the illegality of the new Israeli settlements, in the liberal and pacifist Israeli society, many bets were off. Could Obama get from Israel’s government what nobody among his predecessors, from left nor right wing government, ever obtained from Jerusalem?

Americans understood 20 years ago how important it would be for Israel to stop building colonies in Palestinian territories if they were to continue on the road to resolution. However, aside from an attempt to suspend economic assistance to Israel under George H.W. Bush in 1991 in case the settlements continued to spread – an attempt which was aborted after a few months – no serious, effective pressure has been placed on Israel in the 16 years of the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Here come the arguments and bets of the Israeli pacifists. Will Obama’s words scatter in the wind after Netanyahu’s initial refusals? Will the government in Washington resolve to impose its policy this time?

Judging by the political climate in Israel today, the very few who predicted a turning point in relations between Washington and Jerusalem have won their bet. No doubt, in fact, that there was a sharp turn that was rougher and faster than imagined. The gap between the U.S. and their most important ally in the Middle East is now sensational, and many political experts have long questioned the coincidence of “American and Israeli interests.”

The repercussions in Israel are not felt only by the right party or in the colonies. In fact, according to a recent exit poll, only six percent of Israelis trust Obama’s policy in the Middle East, while the 50 percent believe the president is more pro-Palestine than pro-Israel. This is the first sign of a lack of trust in America, a country that, until yesterday, was considered the most reliable, solid protector of the Jewish State.

One of the consequences of this diffidence toward the United States is Netanyahu’s increasing popularity in Israel. The prime minister is now seen as a brave defender of national autonomy. So far, no personality in the country, and not even the left party, has said anything against him or about his refusal to stop the expansion of the colonies. On the contrary, these actions are the foundations on which he’s gaining consensus within his government. Such a consensus would otherwise be precarious.

His defensive line is double. On the outside, he insists on the fact that the danger of an Iranian nuclear weapon is much more urgent than the Palestinian issue. On the inside, he acts like a dam erected to protect his country from the pressure of Washington. Meanwhile, Barack Obama is perceived as an uncertain ally among Israelis; flexible with everyone, including Tehran’s ayatollahs, Syria and Putin, but not with Israel.

Therefore, the game between Netanyahu and Obama is still open. Obama has the entire Western world, Russia and maybe even the majority of Jewish Americans by his side. In support of Netanyahu is a society and a proud but unpredictable electorate, spoiled by 30 years of American patience and subservience. We’ll have to wait some months more after the forced assent to the formula “two countries, two states” and the call for an end to the unreasonable, unfair proliferation of Jewish colonies in Palestine to see whether “the Arab that the Americans call president,” as the posters say, will be able to overcome Netanyahu.