Netanyahu at the White House: Not Yet Change We Can Believe In

Overall, the May 19th White House meeting between President Barack
Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has to be seen as a
draw. As former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Obama adviser Daniel
Kurtzer noted before the meeting, "for different but complementary
reasons, both Obama and Netanyahu do not want this meeting to fail."
And it didn't. There was no public acknowledgment of strategic
differences between them, the tone was friendly and upbeat, the
U.S.-Israeli "special relationship" re-emerged unchanged and intact.

At
a broader level, the meeting provides an indication that the Obama
administration real policy towards Israel-including the existence and
amount of any U.S. pressure on Israel to meet any U.S. political
demands or even implementation of existing Israeli commitments-is, at
least for now, going to remain behind-the-scenes. The reality that the
U.S. is still the financial, military, diplomatic and political superpower patron on which Israel depends was not reflected in the press conference that followed the meeting.

Certainly, this creates challenges for all those-in the U.S., in the region, and internationally-who are trying to bring about real change in U.S. policy.
The reality is there will not likely be an easier time for Obama in the
future if he intends to bring any real pressure to bear on Israel
towards his stated goal of a two-state solution.

Palestinian
parliamentarian and pro-democracy activist Mustafa Barghouti wrote in
the Los Angeles Times just before the meeting, "It's now or almost
certainly never. If Obama lacks the political will to stand up to
Netanyahu now, he will lack the capacity later. And by the time Obama
leaves office, it will be too late to salvage anything more than an
archipelago of Palestinian bantustans. We Palestinians seek freedom,
not apartheid, and not the sort of Potemkin villages on the West Bank
that Netanyahu is trying to package to the West as visionary economic
boomtowns for desperate Palestinians."

It's only
going to get harder from here, but so far we still don't really know
where "here" is. Obama's public posture didn't challenge Netanyahu's
fundamental claims-but he did not accept them either, and made clear
his own position.

Special Relationships

Obama
began the post-meeting press encounter with an effusive reaffirmation
of "the extraordinary relationship, the special relationship between
the United States and Israel. It is a stalwart ally of the United
States. We have historical ties, emotional ties. As the only true
democracy of the Middle East it is a source of admiration and
inspiration for the American people." He went on to promise "that when
it comes to my policies towards Israel and the Middle East that
Israel's security is paramount, and I repeated that to Prime Minister
Netanyahu. It is in U.S. national security interests to assure that
Israel's security as an independent Jewish state is maintained."

That
last reference is a profoundly dangerous position (though consistent
with Bush administration policy), since it endorses the legal
discrimination against non-Jewish citizens of Israel, as well as the
existence of things like separate legal systems for Jews and non-Jews
(Palestinians) in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. It is those
systems of discrimination that provide the basis for legal scholars'
and human rights advocates' assessment that Israel is in violation of
the UN's 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.

Iran First

Obama spoke
first during the press encounter following their meeting, beginning
with Iran, Israel's top concern. He quickly "reassured" the Israeli
leader that even though the U.S. is now engaging diplomatically rather than threatening Iran, that "we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions."

Obama
reasserted the U.S. policy of persuasion vis-a-vis Iran, and challenged
Netanyahu's claim that Iran's alleged (though nonexistent, according to
international and U.S. intelligence sources) nuclear weapons program
had to be ended or destroyed before Israel could be expected to deal
with the Palestinian issue. Obama openly disagreed, saying that any
such linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
"actually runs the other way." He softened his own position somewhat by
prefacing his description with "I personally believe," thereby taking
the position out of the realm of policy and into the realm of
interesting-but-strategically-irrelevant personal belief, but never
accepted Netanyahu's approach.

The president
first rejected Netanyahu's insistence on a short timetable for any U.S.
diplomatic initiative towards Iran, stating unequivocally "I don't want
to set an artificial deadline" in negotiations with Iran. But that
clarity was again undermined by his follow-up assurance to Israel that
"we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to
whether they [the Iranians] are moving in the right direction." Small
wonder that many analysts, Israeli and others, agreed with David
Makovsky, of the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near-East Policy,
who said
on the Lehrer NewsHour, "I thought that was the news of the day, in
many ways, because for the first time I had heard President Obama
talking about a clear timetable for negotiations with Iran."

The
president stated that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon "could set off a
nuclear arms race in the Middle East." That of course denies the
reality that a Middle East nuclear arms race has unfortunately been
underway for years in response to Israel's well-known but officially
unacknowledged nuclear arsenal.

Netanyahu
asserted at least three times that he and Obama are on the same page,
especially on Iran. "We share the same goals, and we face the same
threats," he said. A few minutes later: "that's what I hear the
president saying, and that's what I'm saying, too." And then: "we don't
see closely on it; we see exactly eye to eye on this." Obama never
agreed with, repeated or asserted those claims, but did not publicly
challenge them either.

So the public gap between
stated U.S. and Israeli positions remains. Obama reassured Israel of a
reassessment of Iran policy at the end of the year, but made no
commitments to or even hints regarding support for military force
against Iran, and left plenty of room to continue diplomatic engagement
even without harsher sanctions-an option, presumably, to be chosen only
if his administration faces enough serious pressure to maintain
diplomacy and not to escalate.

Then Palestine

Only
after his reassurances on Iran did the question of Israel's occupation
of Palestine (though of course those words were not used) come up in
Obama's presentation.

As Barghouti cautioned,
"the false Iran-Palestine linkage troubles me because its Israeli
boosters think that Iran is an immediate concern, and Palestinian
freedom can once again be kicked down the road. Danny Ayalon, Israel's
deputy foreign minister and a representative of Lieberman's extremist
Yisrael Beiteinu party, said in April that 'the Iranian clock should be
measured in months,' but the Palestinian timetable 'is open-ended.'"

Obama
referred again to his support for a two-state solution, and noted that
all parties "have to take seriously obligations that they've previously
agreed to." He called for moving forward in a way that would "also
allow Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state." That
was significant, given Netanyahu's position that while he wants the
Palestinians to "govern" themselves, he calls only for "a substantive
solution that allows the two people to live side by side in security
and peace and I add prosperity, because I'm a great believer in this."
Netanyahu is not, however, a believer in independence, statehood,
self-determination, an end to occupation (even of the narrowly-defined
and truncated U.S. version). He has no intention of allowing
Palestinians the actual powers and rights of real statehood-such as
signing treaties, control of borders, making independent defense and
military decisions, etc. Whether Obama's version of statehood includes
such sovereignty remains unclear.

Obama stated
his position that "under the roadmap and under Annapolis that there's a
clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements.
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." It was an important reference point, but the
president didn't publicly mention any enforcement that might bring real
results from Israel, such as announcing or even hinting that some of
the promised $30 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel over the next
ten years would be made conditional on Israel actually implementing-not
just "addressing"-a complete settlement freeze.

As
expected, Obama also didn't refer directly to Netanyahu's public
rejection of a two-state solution. In fact, official reversal of that
policy would have mattered little; earlier Israeli leaders have been
effusive in their rhetorical support for it while continuing settlement
expansion, land seizures, and apartheid policies on the ground. More
disappointing-though hardly unexpected-was the lack of any public U.S.
insistence on Israeli action on the ground, perhaps a settlement
freeze, as Israel officially agreed to under the "road map." The
Israeli leader can now brag to his constituents that publicly, at
least, there wasn't even a hint of serious public pressure from Obama
to implement any of Israel's obligations.

Obama
did refer to the need for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in
Gaza, specifically mentioning the border closures, but again there was
no hint of pressure for implementation; Netanyahu refused to
acknowledge the point.

So publicly, there is no
indication yet that this initial meeting, at least, will lead to
anything different from the last 18 years of "serious"
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Unfortunately, whether this reflects
actual policy or the extraordinary caution and discipline of a
still-new White House, it's probably still too early to tell.

Looking to the Future

In my pre-meeting analysis, I posed the following scenarios:

If
President Obama, meeting with Netanyahu, demands a real settlement
freeze-meaning an end to construction, expansion and building in all
settlements, not only outposts-it could signify a real change in U.S.
policy towards Israel. But only if it is backed up by specific
enforcement mechanisms-like conditioning all (or even part) of the
annual $3 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel until there is
tangible, internationally-confirmed action on the ground.

So
far, that "real change" remains elusive; this first Obama-Netanyahu
meeting included no public acknowledgement of any U.S. pressure brought
to bear to insure real implementation of Israel's existing treaties or
other international (or U.S.) law obligations. Netanyahu responded with
silence to Obama's reference to "settlements have to be stopped."

Obama's
acceptance of mere words from Netanyahu, on the other hand, whether he
"accepts" a settlement freeze or "agrees" to a new round of talks about
talks with the Palestinians, and not imposing any conditions to make
sure it happens, will indicate that so far, at least, U.S. support for
Israeli occupation and apartheid remain intact.

So
far, Obama seems willing-at least in public-to accept as sufficient
Netanyahu's call "to resume negotiations as rapidly as possible." Those
"negotiations," according to Netanyahu, would first require that "the
Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state." This may be the
most direct indication of a dangerous concession Obama is willing to
make-acquiescence to the demand that the Palestinians accept the
legitimacy of second-class citizenship for Palestinian citizens inside
Israel, and the legitimacy of an apartheid system both inside Israel
and in the occupied Palestinian territory that privileges Jews and
discriminates against non-Jews.

And any "deal"
that offers Israel any promise of U.S. support for or involvement in a
military strike against Iran, will undermine whatever small move
towards justice might be possible from a settlement freeze or removal
of roadblocks.

So far, Obama offered no deals on
Iran. Despite his disappointing shift towards a deadline in U.S.-Iran
diplomacy, there was no hint of acceptance of Netanyahu's call for a
U.S. (or approval of an Israeli) military strike against Iran. While
Obama spoke of the very dangerous possibility of harsher sanctions
against Iran if diplomacy didn't "work" fast enough, it was left to
Netanyahu to "thank" Obama for his alleged "statement that you're
leaving all options on the table"-something Obama had not said during
the press encounter. Obama did not rebut the claim-but he didn't
reaffirm it either.

Opening Gambits

This
was a first meeting; at least in public, both politicians were playing
primarily to their home audiences. The indicators so far were
disappointing. But this was only round one. What happens next,
privately and publicly, will be determined largely by the level of
pressure that is brought to bear on Obama.

We
know the capacity of Israel's U.S. supporters to raise that pressure.
The question for us is how to challenge it, for diplomacy instead of
threats towards Iran, and an end to U.S. support for Israeli occupation
and apartheid and for a U.S. policy based on equality for all. We have
to raise our own claims-regarding Iran and Palestine-based on holding
Obama to his own promises-for a changed foreign policy, for an end to the mindset that leads to war.

There's a lot of work ahead.

YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps.