Ahead of today’s visit of Prime Minister Netanyahu to President Obama the Washington Post, In Obama, Netanyahu meet again amid questions over U.S.-Israel relations, catalogues many of the difficulties plaguing the relationship between the two allies.
The public show of unity matters for the delicate Middle East peace process and for domestic political consumption on both sides. Of immediate concern to the Democratic Party is the effect a perceived rift could have on the midterm elections, as Republicans angle to use any perceived rupture with Netanyahu to argue that Obama is insufficiently committed to Israel.
Obama was cool toward Netanyahu during their last meeting, leaving the Israeli leader and his aides in the West Wing alone for hours as a subtle rebuke over Israeli settlement policies. The two were never photographed, which in diplomatic code sent a chilly message.
That encounter followed an announcement by Israel, during a visit to the country by Vice President Biden, of a plan to construct 1,600 Jewish homes in a part of East Jerusalem that Palestinians view as their future capital.
Despite Ambassador Oren’s claims that the lack of photographs at the meeting was due to scheduling, the article later cites an anonymous official who said that the lack of photographs was, indeed, a sign of the administration’s disapproval. (I assume that Oren sees his job as trying to put the best face on a bad situation.)
Still a significant portion of the article is devoted to explaining the political implications of the visit.
Already, from Illinois to Florida, Republican candidates have been raising Israel as part of a broader critique of Obama’s foreign policy, seeking to chip away at national-security-minded independents and Jewish voters who traditionally support Democrats. When Obama made statements of measured support for Israel after a raid on a Turkish flotilla carrying aid to Gaza last month, Marco Rubio, the Republican candidate in Florida’s Senate race, delivered a speech sharply criticizing Obama’s Israel policy. “There is the emerging sense that this long-standing relationship isn’t what it used to be,” Rubio said.
Robert Dold, a Republican running for an open seat in the 10th Congressional District of Illinois, has accused the administration of an “alarming pattern” in the Middle East. In Ohio’s 15th District, Republican Steve Stivers questioned Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D) about her criticism of Israel’s Gaza blockade, with his campaign saying, “The contrast is very sharp on this issue.” And Allen West, a Republican running against Democratic Rep. Ron Klein in Florida’s 22nd District, said Obama was “browbeating” Israel.
Indeed, on the whole, Democrats are less favorably disposed towards Israel than are Republicans. And it is quite possible that despite President Obama’s continuing (but slightly declining) popularity among American Jews his heavy handed treatment of Israel may take a toll. The Post article reads a like a fence mending effort by the White House with American, just in case Jews are put off by President Obama’s treatment of Israel. Even so, the exercise seems more like damage control than a sincere effort at reconcilliation.
In February, 2008, Candidate Obama famously said that being pro-Israel was not the same as being pro-Likud. In a sense, Netanyahu’s election has made things easy for President Obama. With the exception of announcing the building of apartments in Jerusalem, it’s hard to see any area where Tzipi Livni would have done things differently than Netanyahu or that Obama’s behavior towards Israel would have been different. (Keep in mind also, that the administration chose not to make a diplomatic incident over the recent arrest of Russian spies operating in the United States, a much bigger “slap in the face” than the construction announcement in March while Biden was visiting Israel.) Never mind that Netanyahu’s government represents a consensus of society, since he’s from Likud, it insulates President Obama from criticism that he is anti-Israel.
It is thought that one of the reasons that Israel halted Operation Cast Lead when it did was so that it wouldn’t run afoul of the new American administration and that government was headed by Livni.
The other day the New York Times reported:
The United States, American officials said, faced a hard choice: refusing to compromise with the Arab states on Israel would have sunk the entire review conference. Given the emphasis Mr. Obama has placed on nonproliferation, the United States could not accept such an outcome.
Would the Obama administration have followed previous administrations from both parties to protect Israel’s nuclear ambiguity if Tzipi Livni had been the Prime Minister? Would the IDF have reacted differently to the flotilla if Livni had been PM?
Aided by a complicit media President Obama has been able to disguise his less than friendly attitude towards Israel as a reasonable response to an extremist Prime Minister. But the regular diplomatic flare ups between Israel and the United States suggest to many that the problem in the relationship may not be Netanyahu. His freeze on building went further than any other Israeli PM and it has not succeeded in bringing the Palestinian Authrority to the negotiating table. (Nor has Abbas taken any interest in stopping the official incitement against Israel in his government controlled media.)
It sure looks like the President, realizing the difficulties Democrats will face in November, is trying to keep one of the most loyal Democratic constituencies on board by arranging for a photo-op with the Israeli Prime Minister. Given the tendency of Jews to vote Democratic I don’t know that it’s necessary for him politically to mend fences (at least publicly) with Netanyahu. Regardless, today’s meeting reeks of cynicism.
UPDATE: This also is the gist of this report from The Hill. (via memeorandum)
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
