Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports in the New York Times that Obama intends to conduct talks with Middle East leaders, including Iran.
Mr. Obama wants time for his diplomatic overtures to work. Israel is rattled by those overtures and concerned that the president will not be as unwavering a supporter of Israel as was his predecessor, George W. Bush.
This reporting is accurate, but it disturbs me. I want the people of Israel to consider what George W. Bush’s friendship won for them over the last eight years. No doubt, Bush gave Israel the green light to demolish what was left of the Palestinian Authority during the Second Intifada. But this only weakened Fatah and gave rise to Hamas as a major rival. Bush green-lighted the invasion of Lebanon, but that only resulted in Israel’s first true military defeat and the strengthening of Hizbollah (and their patron, Iran). Bush pushed for elections in Palestine that Hamas won. Subsequently, Bush authorized covert action against Hamas in Gaza which resulted in Hamas taking over the entire Strip. As a result, Bush gave his blessing for the invasion of Gaza, but that only succeeded in gaining near universal world-wide condemnation. As far as I can tell, Israel has gained nothing from their friendship with Bush. Even the invasion of Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein did Israel little good. Now they are in a near panic about the resulting increased influence of the Iranian Revolutionary Government.
By contrast, Obama does not promise to let Israel continue to build settlements and invade their neighbors whenever there are repercussions.
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, pressed Mr. Netanyahu to freeze the construction of Israeli settlements on the West Bank.
“Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.”
Actually, I want to give you more of his answer on what Israel must do, for context:
OBAMA: Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well. And I shared with the prime minister the fact that under the road map, under Annapolis, there is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements; that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.
That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza has to be addressed.
Now, I was along the border in Sderot, and saw the evidence of weapons that had been rained down on the heads of innocents in those Israeli cities. And that’s unacceptable. So we’ve got to work with the Egyptians to deal with the smuggling of weapons. And it has to be meaningful, because no prime minister of any country is going to tolerate missiles raining down on their citizens’ heads.
On the other hand, the fact is is that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel’s long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.
So all these things are going to have to come together. And it’s going to be difficult.
I don’t know that I would of changed a word to that response. It’s interesting that Israel chose to elect a man who is opposed to a two-state solution at this time. Netanyahu knows full well that his government will fall quicker than an apple in autumn if he gets crossways of the Obama administration. His job in these meetings (as he saw it), was to get a firm commitment from America that we will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. In practical terms, that meant getting Obama to set some kind of deadline for progress in negotiations with Iran. In this, he failed. Obama refused to set a deadline, but he did say that we should have a better sense of how things are going by the end of the year.
There is a lot of wishful thinking from hardline supporters of Israel, but the Jerusalem Post caught the gist of things with their headline Obama insists Palestinians must have state, rejects Iran deadline. The Post provided clear-eyed reporting:
Asked about reports in the media that Israel felt progress on Iran needed to be linked to progress with the Palestinians, Obama explicitly rejected the formulation, saying, “If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way: To the extent that we can make peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat.”
According to Haaretz, Obama sent a message to Netanyahu before he even left Israel for these meetings:
U.S. President Barack Obama has sent a message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanding that Israel not surprise the U.S. with an Israeli military operation against Iran. The message was conveyed by a senior American official who met in Israel with Netanyahu, ministers and other senior officials.
Even Rahm Emanuel has been issuing tough talk to the Israelis about thinking they can distract us about the settlements with fearmongering about Iran.
Israel isn’t going to be able to fake this effort. It’s still possible that Iran is as intransigent as its worst critics claim. If they do not come to the table, we’ll see this effort at Middle East peace fail just as surely as every previous effort has failed. But, we have the best chance in recent history for the simple reason that our president isn’t fooled by cheap rhetoric. Israel will have to bend this time and only their enemies can prevent progress.
