TEL AVIV - The last week or
so witnessed an elaborate dance between United
States President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
An
uncompromising speech before the Israeli Knesset
(parliament) by Netanyahu was followed by a firm
speech before the US Congress by Obama.
Then came a tense meeting between the two
and a sweetened speech before the Israeli lobby,
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), by Obama, to be matched in tone by a
speech before the US Congress by Netanyahu. A
moment of pause inbetween, then Netanyahu's
address before AIPAC.
The dance has the
steps of a waltz of sorts, but it conveys the
drama and the theatrics of a
tango. Amid roaring applause, both dancers bow
elegantly and part ways, leaving the audience
dazzled, full of contradicting emotions, and
perhaps even a little bit rueful.
Such is
the impact of good art; both politicians, as well
as their speechwriters, deserve credit for their
masterful performance. If only, one is left
thinking, the show could go on a little longer; if
only it could take the place of reality.
Too much was said in all the speeches to
summarize comprehensively here, but several points
and main threads stick out. The day after the
Nakba day events (see my article Prelude
to an Intifada, Asia Times Online, May 16),
Netanyahu gave a hawkish speech before the Knesset
in which he claimed the Palestinians were after
Israel's very existence and vowed not to
compromise on the main issues. [1]
Several
days later, Obama responded in a speech before
congress in which he vowed support for the
"democratic revolutions" in the Arab world and
urged a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict based on the 1967 lines, with borders and
security to be discussed first, and other
important issues, such as refugee rights and the
status of Jerusalem, left for later. [2]
While, as many have pointed out, there was
nothing new in these outlines, and in private it
is often speculated on the ground that East
Jerusalem will eventually be traded for the right
of return, the reactions of both Israelis and
Palestinians to the speech were negative.
Netanyahu's reaction was particularly
furious. Arguably, he was primarily upset that
Obama, in the words of Herb Keinon writing for the
Jerusalem Post, "had essentially thrown [a letter
written by President George W Bush in 2004] out
the window." [3] He blasted that Israel could not
return to the "indefensible" 1967 borders, and
warned the American president in a press statement
that "there are issues which just cannot be swept
under the rug". The tensions between the two
leaders shot up dramatically, with Netanyahu's
associates calling Obama "detached from reality"
[4] and Obama's aides saying that Netanyahu would
"never" do what it takes to achieve peace. [5]
A meeting between the two on Friday took
considerably longer than planned, and though they
issued conciliatory statements at the end,
speculations and tensions continued over the
weekend. "Obama is on Mars right now, and the
prime minister is on another planet," veteran
American negotiator Aaron David Miller said in an
interview with ABC on Sunday.
The dramatic
histrionic breakthrough came during Obama's speech
before AIPAC on Sunday. The president sought to
paper over the tensions, emphasizing that "the
commitment of the United States to the security of
Israel is ironclad". He assured the symposium that
his mention of the 1967 borders included "mutually
agreed swaps", defining the latter in the
following way: "the parties themselves - Israelis
and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is
different than the one that existed on June 4,
1967". [6]
The crowning act was
Netanyahu's own appearance before congress on
Tuesday. In one of the most elegant speeches of
his political career, the Israeli prime minister
in turn took a step back, thanked Obama for his
support, and offered "painful compromises to
achieve this historic peace".
He promised
that "we'll be generous about the size of the
future Palestinian state", but stated firmly that
"Jerusalem must never again be divided". He called
on the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the
Jewish state, and on Abbas to "tear up" his
agreement with Hamas, which he called "the
Palestinian version of al-Qaeda".
Notably,
he spoke warmly of Palestinian Prime Minister
Salam Fayyad, who is currently recovering from a
heart attack and who will likely be ousted in the
new national unity Palestinian government between
Hamas and Fatah. [7]
Official reactions to
the exchange varied, but it is clear that
apocalyptic predictions about a full-blown
collision between Netanyahu and Obama failed to
materialize. White House spokesman Jay Carney
expressed his "satisfaction" after the last
Netanyahu speech. (It was hard to say otherwise
after the standing applause which the Israeli
prime minister received at the congress session.)
Israeli analysts are raving about their prime
minister's performance. "Netanyahu will return to
Israel today as a victor," Yossi Verter wrote in
Israeli daily Ha'aretz on Wednesday. The
Palestinians were surprised and outraged,
scrambling for a response. Or so they said. For it
was they who provided Netanyahu with the
ammunition to shoot down Obama's fledgling
attempts to pressure him. "Abbas has given
[Netanyahu] an incredible gift by unifying with
Hamas," Aaron David Miller wrote prior to the
meetings in a Foreign Policy article that
cautioned Obama not to make "big speeches".
"Unless Hamas abandons the armed struggle,
releases the kidnapped Israeli soldier it has held
as hostage, and recognizes Israel, Netanyahu is
more or less untouchable at home and can parry
American pressure should there be any." [8]
It seems that both Netanyahu and Obama
took Miller's advice to an extent, even though
they kept the theatrics. Liberal commentators in
Israel and the US were quick to attack Netanyahu
for failing to create an opportunity for a real
break-through. "We're not talking about a peace
process anymore; we're talking about a PR
process," Rob Malley of the Middle East and North
Africa at the International Crisis Group told The
New York Times in reference to the Israeli prime
minister's speech before congress.
Malley
acknowledged Netanyahu's dazzling performance, but
cautioned that it might have been "a pyrrhic
victory" in light of the upcoming Palestinian
declaration of independence in September and the
need for a real progress in the peace talks in
order to prevent such unilateral moves.
Yet if no real progress toward peace
follows - and all indicators suggest there will be
none - the American president is also to blame.
"Obama's foray into Israeli-Palestinian affairs
was not intended to be serious; rather, it was
merely a cover for his broader policy to
reconstitute a coalition of the willing," wrote
influential American think-tank Stratfor in an
article criticizing Obama's approach toward the
Arab uprisings.
Stratfor explained:
Obviously, if Obama is going to call
for sweeping change, he must address the
Israeli-Palestinian relationship. Obama knows
this is the graveyard of foreign policy:
Presidents who go into this rarely come out
well. But any influence he would have with the
Arabs would be diminished if he didn't try.
Undoubtedly understanding the futility of the
attempt, he went in, trying to reconcile an
Israel that has no intention of returning to the
geopolitically vulnerable borders of 1967 with a
Hamas with no intention of publicly
acknowledging Israel's right to exist - with
Fatah hanging in the middle. By the weekend, the
president was doing what he knew he would do and
was switching positions. [9]
As
mentioned above, the Palestinians and their
supporters reacted furiously. Chief Palestinian
negotiator Saeb Erekat called Netanyahu's congress
speech "incitement against Arabs". Palestinian
President Mahmud Abbas' spokesman, Nabil Abu
Rudeineh, echoed that "This is not going to lead
to any solution."
Abbas himself kept a
lower-profile, but called an urgent meeting of the
Palestinian leadership on Wednesday to discuss the
statements, and the reaction is unlikely to be
positive. In an op-ed in The New York Times last
week, which can be considered his two cents to the
discussion (or pirouette to the dance, to go back
to that metaphor), he laid down a sharply
contrasting narrative to everything that the two
leaders said, and vowed to continue on his path
toward Palestinian independence. [10]
In-between the Washington speeches, he
also defended his pact with Hamas and proclaimed
that the new government would be one of
technocrats directed by him. [11]
Something that emerges from the exchange
is that Abbas and Obama were clearly out of step.
In the last month, both made attempts to shake up
the status-quo, but unfortunately their attempts
cancelled each other. Their dance was never set up
to be one of equal partners; one of Abbas' main
acts before the Americans has always centered on
his weakness. "I need you to pressure Israel
because I am too weak to do it myself or to make
concessions," he has been telling the White House
all along.
For a while, Obama was also
weak, following his party's defeat in last year's
mid-terms, the WikiLeaks scandals, and the Arab
uprisings. This created a vacuum. Abbas stepped in
to fill it with his reconciliation with Hamas,
which surprised the Americans and painted him as a
newly-assertive actor.
But then, almost
simultaneously, Obama also decided to go on the
offensive, taking out Osama bin Laden and boosting
significantly his domestic support and thus his
hand against Netanyahu. At the time, many Israeli
analysts predicted a disastrous showdown at the
White House.
Unfortunately, the two
initiatives did not go well together. If Abbas is
strong and assertive, the Americans, who have
always claimed to be an honest broker, have all
the more reason to back off in order to preserve
the balance between the two sides. This is exactly
what happened in the last days.
Hamas'
extremism only added fuel to the fire. Abbas, for
all his bluster, has few powerful cards to play -
or so it seems. It remains to be seen if he will
pull a rabbit out of the metaphoric hat and
surprise everybody with another bold move; this is
currently a major wild card, but the likelihood is
low.
Israel benefits from the additional
argument that in the wake of the Arab uprisings,
it is widely perceived to be the only truly
dependable ally of the United States in the Middle
East, as Netanyahu repeatedly emphasized.
Overall, the Israeli premier's trip to
Washington showed that his relationship with the
White House is as solid as ever, even though a lot
of mistrust remains. For now, he found a brilliant
way to say "yes, but" to Obama's pressure. More
serious tests, however, lie ahead, up to and
through the widely expected Palestinian
declaration of independence.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
