WASHINGTON — As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel heads to the White House on Friday for the seventh meeting since President Obama took office, the two men are facing a turning point in a relationship that has never been warm.
By all accounts, they do not trust each other. President Obama has told aides and allies that he does not believe that Mr. Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of big concessions that will lead to a peace deal.
For his part, Mr. Netanyahu has complained that Mr. Obama has pushed Israel too far — a point driven home during a furious phone call with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday morning, just hours before Mr. Obama’s speech, during which the prime minister reacted angrily to the president’s plan to endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders for a future Palestinian state.
Mr. Obama did not back down. But the last-minute furor highlights the discord as they head into what one Israeli official described as a “train wreck” coming their way: a United Nations General Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood in September.
Mr. Netanyahu, his close associates say, desperately wants Mr. Obama to use the diplomatic muscle of the United States to protect Israel from the vote, not only by vetoing it in the Security Council, but also by leaning hard on America’s European allies to get them to reject it as well.
Mr. Obama has indicated that he will certainly do the first. But it remains unclear how far Mr. Obama can go to persuade Britain, France and other American allies to join the United States in rejecting the move, particularly as long as Mr. Netanyahu continues to resist endorsing the pre-1967 lines.
From one of their first meetings, at the King David Hotel on July 23, 2008, when Mr. Obama, then the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, visited Israel, the two men have struck, at most, an intellectual bond. Mr. Netanyahu, as the leader of Israel’s conservative Likud Party, was far more comfortable with the Republican Party in the United States than with Mr. Obama, the son of a Muslim man from Kenya whose introduction to the Arab-Israeli conflict was initially framed by discussions with pro-Palestinian academics.
“Their relationship is correct at best,” said Judith Kipper, director of Middle East programs at the Institute of World Affairs. Mr. Netanyahu “likes the status quo, and he particularly identifies with conservative Republicans.”
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a friend of Mr. Netanyahu’s, recalled that after the first meeting, Mr. Netanyahu walked out of the hotel and told him that he had been impressed with Mr. Obama’s intellect, and that the American presidency “was his to lose.”
But things went downhill soon after Mr. Obama took office and, within months, called for a halt in Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. Mr. Netanyahu refused, handing the president his first foreign policy humiliation when Mr. Obama had to abandon the demand in the face of Israel’s refusal to comply.
Compounding the problem, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a fiery speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington declaring that “Jerusalem isn’t a settlement, it’s our capital.” A furious White House promptly denied him all the trappings of a presidential meeting with Mr. Obama the next day, refusing to allow photographers to take pictures of the two men in the Oval Office, as is usually the case for meetings with foreign leaders.
Things got so bad, Mr. Foxman recalled, that Mr. Netanyahu “told me, ‘Abe, I need two hours just alone to talk to him.” Late last year, Mr. Netanyahu got his two hours at the White House with Mr. Obama, a meeting which, both American and Israeli officials say, helped clear the air. “The relationship now is very cordial,” a senior White House official said.
But the easing of tensions ended this spring when, Israeli and American officials said, Mr. Netanyahu got wind of Mr. Obama’s plans to make a major address on the Middle East, and alerted Republican leaders that he would like to address a joint meeting of Congress. That move was widely interpreted as an attempt to get out in front of Mr. Obama, by presenting an Israeli peace proposal that, while short of what the Palestinians want, would box in the president. House Speaker John A. Boehner issued the invitation, for late May.
So White House officials timed Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday to make sure he went first.
“You get so many reports that Bibi is playing politics in your backyard that eventually you’ve got to draw the conclusion that there’s nothing there to work with with this guy,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now a fellow with the New American Foundation, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname. Administration officials said that they were determined not to allow Mr. Netanyahu to get out in front of Mr. Obama.
In a statement after Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu’s office pointedly said that the prime minister would raise his concerns about Mr. Obama’s language about the pre-1967 borders during Friday’s meeting.
“While there were many points in the president’s speech that we appreciate and welcome, there were other aspects, like the return to the 1967 borders, which depart from longstanding American policy, as well as Israeli policy, going back to 1967,” Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview. “The prime minister will raise the issue with the president. As the president said, the United States and Israel are great friends, and friends have to be able to talk frankly to one another.”
But both men will have to manage any additional irritation as they prepare for the United Nations vote that is headed their way, American and Israeli officials said. Neither side wants to see an overwhelmingly lopsided United Nations vote for Palestinian statehood, with Britain, France and Germany joining the rest of the world and isolating Israel further, with only the United States and a few others voting against it.
“I think the Europeans are sliding” toward voting for Palestinian statehood “because they don’t see a peace strategy coming out,” said David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
He said that the two leaders had to figure out a way to work together to stop a United Nations vote that could harm both the United States and Israel. “If they are incapable of being able to translate a common interest into a common strategy, then it’s a very sad commentary on both countries,” Mr. Makovsky said.
By all accounts, they do not trust each other. President Obama has told aides and allies that he does not believe that Mr. Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of big concessions that will lead to a peace deal.
For his part, Mr. Netanyahu has complained that Mr. Obama has pushed Israel too far — a point driven home during a furious phone call with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday morning, just hours before Mr. Obama’s speech, during which the prime minister reacted angrily to the president’s plan to endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders for a future Palestinian state.
Mr. Obama did not back down. But the last-minute furor highlights the discord as they head into what one Israeli official described as a “train wreck” coming their way: a United Nations General Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood in September.
Mr. Netanyahu, his close associates say, desperately wants Mr. Obama to use the diplomatic muscle of the United States to protect Israel from the vote, not only by vetoing it in the Security Council, but also by leaning hard on America’s European allies to get them to reject it as well.
Mr. Obama has indicated that he will certainly do the first. But it remains unclear how far Mr. Obama can go to persuade Britain, France and other American allies to join the United States in rejecting the move, particularly as long as Mr. Netanyahu continues to resist endorsing the pre-1967 lines.
From one of their first meetings, at the King David Hotel on July 23, 2008, when Mr. Obama, then the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, visited Israel, the two men have struck, at most, an intellectual bond. Mr. Netanyahu, as the leader of Israel’s conservative Likud Party, was far more comfortable with the Republican Party in the United States than with Mr. Obama, the son of a Muslim man from Kenya whose introduction to the Arab-Israeli conflict was initially framed by discussions with pro-Palestinian academics.
“Their relationship is correct at best,” said Judith Kipper, director of Middle East programs at the Institute of World Affairs. Mr. Netanyahu “likes the status quo, and he particularly identifies with conservative Republicans.”
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a friend of Mr. Netanyahu’s, recalled that after the first meeting, Mr. Netanyahu walked out of the hotel and told him that he had been impressed with Mr. Obama’s intellect, and that the American presidency “was his to lose.”
But things went downhill soon after Mr. Obama took office and, within months, called for a halt in Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. Mr. Netanyahu refused, handing the president his first foreign policy humiliation when Mr. Obama had to abandon the demand in the face of Israel’s refusal to comply.
Compounding the problem, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a fiery speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington declaring that “Jerusalem isn’t a settlement, it’s our capital.” A furious White House promptly denied him all the trappings of a presidential meeting with Mr. Obama the next day, refusing to allow photographers to take pictures of the two men in the Oval Office, as is usually the case for meetings with foreign leaders.
Things got so bad, Mr. Foxman recalled, that Mr. Netanyahu “told me, ‘Abe, I need two hours just alone to talk to him.” Late last year, Mr. Netanyahu got his two hours at the White House with Mr. Obama, a meeting which, both American and Israeli officials say, helped clear the air. “The relationship now is very cordial,” a senior White House official said.
But the easing of tensions ended this spring when, Israeli and American officials said, Mr. Netanyahu got wind of Mr. Obama’s plans to make a major address on the Middle East, and alerted Republican leaders that he would like to address a joint meeting of Congress. That move was widely interpreted as an attempt to get out in front of Mr. Obama, by presenting an Israeli peace proposal that, while short of what the Palestinians want, would box in the president. House Speaker John A. Boehner issued the invitation, for late May.
So White House officials timed Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday to make sure he went first.
“You get so many reports that Bibi is playing politics in your backyard that eventually you’ve got to draw the conclusion that there’s nothing there to work with with this guy,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now a fellow with the New American Foundation, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname. Administration officials said that they were determined not to allow Mr. Netanyahu to get out in front of Mr. Obama.
In a statement after Mr. Obama’s speech on Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu’s office pointedly said that the prime minister would raise his concerns about Mr. Obama’s language about the pre-1967 borders during Friday’s meeting.
“While there were many points in the president’s speech that we appreciate and welcome, there were other aspects, like the return to the 1967 borders, which depart from longstanding American policy, as well as Israeli policy, going back to 1967,” Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview. “The prime minister will raise the issue with the president. As the president said, the United States and Israel are great friends, and friends have to be able to talk frankly to one another.”
But both men will have to manage any additional irritation as they prepare for the United Nations vote that is headed their way, American and Israeli officials said. Neither side wants to see an overwhelmingly lopsided United Nations vote for Palestinian statehood, with Britain, France and Germany joining the rest of the world and isolating Israel further, with only the United States and a few others voting against it.
“I think the Europeans are sliding” toward voting for Palestinian statehood “because they don’t see a peace strategy coming out,” said David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
He said that the two leaders had to figure out a way to work together to stop a United Nations vote that could harm both the United States and Israel. “If they are incapable of being able to translate a common interest into a common strategy, then it’s a very sad commentary on both countries,” Mr. Makovsky said.
12.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Thomas Jefferson advised us to "seek friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none." The relationship is one-sided. We give- they take. Israel is a strategic liability. Our blind support of Israel is harmful to America.
Recommend Recommended by 473 Readers
23.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
President Obama, again, comes out with a new foreign policy plan for the middle east. Again, he slaps Israel upside the head with his narrow viewed attempt to please everyone at once....except Israel!Why is it that Mr. Obama feels that it is Israel that should have to surrender the land, the resources and, more importantly, the security that those land buffers and the Golan Heights provide. Let's not be fooled, the Golan Heights provide 15-20 percent of Israel's water needs and you can be sure that many people in the middle east would love to deny Israel that important resource. Also, let us not forget what nation is the one and ONLY nation that the United States can always depend on. France....nope, they are a horrendous 'ally'. Britain...not like we used to be able to depend them. German, Japan, Canada......no, no, and no! Israel is our one ally that can be counted on 100 percent of the time!
Recommend Recommended by 87 Readers
36.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
It's about time a US President has the guts to stand up to the more militaristic Israelis. Many peace-minded Israelis support the return to the 1967 borders -- in exchange for peace. That's the important point: any such deal must be contingent on the Palestinians and their Arab allies controlling the extremist elements within Palestine. Rocket attacks from the Golan Heights and the West Bank cannot be tolerated.
But neither can these aggressive West Bank Jewish settlements be tolerated. My Israeli friend tells me that the most militant West Bank settlers all come from outside Israel. American Jews (just a small fraction of them, I suspect) can stir up trouble with idealistic extremism and then return to New York when the situation heats up. The Israeli Jews want peace. And this is a good start to the process. Congratulations to President Obama!
But neither can these aggressive West Bank Jewish settlements be tolerated. My Israeli friend tells me that the most militant West Bank settlers all come from outside Israel. American Jews (just a small fraction of them, I suspect) can stir up trouble with idealistic extremism and then return to New York when the situation heats up. The Israeli Jews want peace. And this is a good start to the process. Congratulations to President Obama!
Recommend Recommended by 357 Readers
49.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Two points about Obama's speech:
1. He must realize, the 1949 armistice lines (dubbed 1967 boundaries) are simply a none starter for Arab Israeli peace. Even UN Security Council Resolution, 242, which was desived to achieve Arab Israeli peace, accepted by all parties, including the PLO, has been the basis for all peace talks and actual agreements does not even suggest such future borders.
2. Obama should have addressed directly and forcefully the Arabs' categorical refusal to accept Israel's RIGHT to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people on ANY parcel of land between the River and the Sea. This refusal has been the very core of the conflict, yet Mr. Obama has refused to address it.
1. He must realize, the 1949 armistice lines (dubbed 1967 boundaries) are simply a none starter for Arab Israeli peace. Even UN Security Council Resolution, 242, which was desived to achieve Arab Israeli peace, accepted by all parties, including the PLO, has been the basis for all peace talks and actual agreements does not even suggest such future borders.
2. Obama should have addressed directly and forcefully the Arabs' categorical refusal to accept Israel's RIGHT to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people on ANY parcel of land between the River and the Sea. This refusal has been the very core of the conflict, yet Mr. Obama has refused to address it.
Recommend Recommended by 79 Readers
62.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
I admire President Obama and I think he delivered an excellent address. I suspect he knows that his speech is unlikely to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that doesn't mean the effort was wasted.
When I first learned that Obama would be speaking, I thought it was a mistake for him to spend his political capital on this intractable problem. But now that I've read the transcript, I have a different view. I think it's important for the world to see Obama as an honest broker – as someone who truly cares about the advancement of peace and democracy in the Middle East, even while he works to protect America's interests.
Of course, no speech -- and no single administration -- is going to abruptly change international opinion. There's too much history, too much bloodshed, too much animosity. But one president CAN begin to melt the ice -- and I believe Obama did just that.
The fact that the speech was coolly received by Isrealis and Arabs is actually a good sign. Obama took a moderate, even-handed approach. Such an approach was bound to disappoint both sides, but at least he cleared the air and laid the foundation for a fairer, more open, and more compassionate approach to the Middle East.
If future presidents tow the same line, over time people of the Middle East may come to see a new stability and fairness in America's foreign policy. Then, perhaps, the ice will continue to melt, and maybe -- just maybe -- some good will emerge from the seed our president planted today.
When I first learned that Obama would be speaking, I thought it was a mistake for him to spend his political capital on this intractable problem. But now that I've read the transcript, I have a different view. I think it's important for the world to see Obama as an honest broker – as someone who truly cares about the advancement of peace and democracy in the Middle East, even while he works to protect America's interests.
Of course, no speech -- and no single administration -- is going to abruptly change international opinion. There's too much history, too much bloodshed, too much animosity. But one president CAN begin to melt the ice -- and I believe Obama did just that.
The fact that the speech was coolly received by Isrealis and Arabs is actually a good sign. Obama took a moderate, even-handed approach. Such an approach was bound to disappoint both sides, but at least he cleared the air and laid the foundation for a fairer, more open, and more compassionate approach to the Middle East.
If future presidents tow the same line, over time people of the Middle East may come to see a new stability and fairness in America's foreign policy. Then, perhaps, the ice will continue to melt, and maybe -- just maybe -- some good will emerge from the seed our president planted today.
Recommend Recommended by 121 Readers
69.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Natanyahu needs to understand that the US is facing grave challenges in the Middle East and here at home and can no longer put its interest on the line for the sake of Israel. Obama must make it clear to him that Israel must end the occupation and resolve its conflicts immediately, not just for the sake of Israel but also for the sake of our alliance and our friendship.
Recommend Recommended by 193 Readers
81.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
President Obama laid out a plan in his address today with commitment to the two state solution while affirming support for Israel' security.The path to peace leads through working on this proposal.
Netanyahu's approach is "my way or the highway" and clearly not toward a peaceful resolution as history has shown.
The President needs to stand strong on this...life in the Middle East is the cost!
Netanyahu's approach is "my way or the highway" and clearly not toward a peaceful resolution as history has shown.
The President needs to stand strong on this...life in the Middle East is the cost!
Recommend Recommended by 29 Readers
100.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
The Queen just gave a wonderful speech of reconciliation in Dublin. And the Irish people seemed happy to have her there. If, after all the suffering they have inflicted upon one another, the British and the Irish can reconcile and act like peaceful modern people, then this has to be possible with the Israelis and Palestinians, too.
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
123.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
So I am reading this comments and scratching my head. I want peace in the Middle East as much as anyone and I think the Palestinians deserve their own country as well. I also believe that the settlers in the West Bank are illegal. But, why should Israel go back to borders that are undefendable now. There is not a shred of evidence that the Palestinians will put down their weapons, including suicide bombers, and seek to build their country on the WEst Bank and Gaza.
Israel walked out of Gaza six or seven years ago. What happened? Hamas and the other lunatics there simply started to lob missiles into Israel proper. Is there any evidence that this will not happen again once Israel gives back the West Bank? I don't see any. All I see is deception on the side of the Palestinians. I see double-talk and a lack of recognition that the Jewish people also have a right to live on this land.
What's worse is that the people Israel may make peace with could be overthrown and replaced by jihadists and others who will quickly seek to grab all the land.
Unfortunately, this is a no-win situation that will go on until they destroy each other. Obama's plan will go no where because Israel cannot trust the PAlestinians and never will be able to. I'm not exactly a fan of Netanyahu, but he is trying to save his country and he has every right to do so.
Israel walked out of Gaza six or seven years ago. What happened? Hamas and the other lunatics there simply started to lob missiles into Israel proper. Is there any evidence that this will not happen again once Israel gives back the West Bank? I don't see any. All I see is deception on the side of the Palestinians. I see double-talk and a lack of recognition that the Jewish people also have a right to live on this land.
What's worse is that the people Israel may make peace with could be overthrown and replaced by jihadists and others who will quickly seek to grab all the land.
Unfortunately, this is a no-win situation that will go on until they destroy each other. Obama's plan will go no where because Israel cannot trust the PAlestinians and never will be able to. I'm not exactly a fan of Netanyahu, but he is trying to save his country and he has every right to do so.
Recommend Recommended by 24 Readers
133.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Being Jewish does not equal blind support to Israel. My Grandmother barely escaped the Nazi's, and fled to the US, so I understand the Israeli argument. However, it is still hard for me to understand how a people who had suffered persecution can turn around and do the same thing to another people in the same lifetime.
Recommend Recommended by 40 Readers
153.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
The Palestinians never had a rock to call their own under their arab friends - they were driven out of Jordan as well as Lebanon, and lived in camps in the West Bank and Gaza. It was only after Israel won those areas that negotiations started to give the Palestinians authority. Since then they have formed their parliament and started to live under their own autonomy. It is obvious that they will form their own State, but first they must recognise Israel's right to exist,granted by the United Nations, and cease terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians as well as the rocket attacks from Palestinians. Israel has always been a democracy, Palestinians have to decide whether they choose to become one and to live normal lives or to continue to deny Israel's right to exist.
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
186.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
I think one can be a Jew without being a supporter of Israeli arrogance. Having just spent time in France, where there are memorials everywhere, documenting how civilized western people were capable of deporting people to meet death or a horrific life, in the lifetime of our parents, it never ceases to amaze me how descendants of those who met such tragedy, are capable of subjecting Palestinians to the similar lives of torment. That the Israeli's, who would like to portray themselves as the chosen people, would try to convince people that they are acting in God's name, is an untenable proposition. Shame on Netanyahu. Kudos to Barack Obama. Shalom and Salaam mean the same thing.
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers
187.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Until today, Obama had lost my vote. He's got it back only so long as he stands his ground on this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment