Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Obama and Netanyahu—Friends Again?

Described as a “meaningless PR exercise” by one prominent observer, this week’s meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appears to have been little more than an opportunity for the two leaders to reassure their domestic audiences.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Insisting that the bond between their two nations was “unbreakable,” U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu emerged all smiles from their long-awaited White House meeting on Tuesday.

Speaking before reporters, the two men, whose last encounter here in March appeared to confirm a crisis in bilateral ties, lavished compliments on each other.

“[T]he fact of the matter is, is that I’ve trusted Prime Minister Netanyahu since I met him before I was elected president,” declared Obama before the two leaders were joined by their top aides for a working lunch.

In particular, Obama praised Netanyahu “on the progress that’s been made in allowing more goods into Gaza” in the wake of international outrage directed against Israel’s lethal May 31 attack on a Turkish flotilla carrying humanitarian goods to the besieged Palestinian territory, and on his “willingness to engage in serious negotiations with the Palestinians around what I think should be the goal … of two states living side-by-side in peace and security.”

Obama also reassured the Israeli leader that Washington’s policy on Israel’s nuclear weapons program has not changed despite the U.S. decision in April not to oppose a consensus by parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] calling on the Jewish state to join the pact.

“I reiterated to the prime minister that there is no change in U.S. policy when it comes to these issues,” Obama said. “We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it’s in, and the threats that are leveled … against it, that Israel has unique security requirements.”

An official White House readout of the meeting released later Tuesday said Obama had told Netanyahu that “he recognizes that … only Israel can determine its security needs.”

For his part, Netanyahu expressed satisfaction with Washington’s role last month in persuading other members of the U.N. Security Council to impose a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, insisting that they “create delegitimization for Iran’s nuclear program.” He also praised new unilateral U.S. sanctions signed into law by Obama last week, adding that they “actually have teeth. They bite.”

“[T]he reports about the demise of the special U.S.-Israel relationship aren’t just premature; they’re just flat wrong,” said Netanyahu.

Tuesday’s meeting, which was originally to have taken place on June 2 but was rescheduled when Netanyahu rushed back home from a visit to Canada to deal with the diplomatic crisis that followed the attack on the flotilla, appeared designed to serve the domestic political interests of both principals.

Obama has been eager to shore up support, particularly for Democratic candidates in November’s mid-term congressional elections, in the Jewish community which, despite its small size, accounts for as much as 40 percent of all campaign contributions to the party.

The contretemps in March—which began when Jerusalem’s municipal authorities announced a settlement project during the visit of Vice President Joseph Biden and culminated with a White House decision to ban photos of Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu two weeks later—was seized on by Republicans as evidence of the president’s insensitivity or hostility to Israel. Unnerved, a number of influential liberal Jewish leaders and Democratic lawmakers pressed the administration to “kiss and make up” with Netanyahu.

“From a diplomatic perspective, this was a meaningless PR exercise that simply confirms the degree to which Obama remains beholden to the ‘status quo’ lobby,” said Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor on international relations and coauthor with John Mearsheimer of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

“It’s designed to show that U.S-Israeli relations are still just fine and intended to keep ‘pro-Israel’ dollars flowing into the Democratic Party’s coffers in the run-up to the November mid-terms,” he added.

Netanyahu was similarly concerned that the perception of a major rift with Washington, Israel’s closest ally and supporter by far for nearly 50 years, could cost him politically at home.

Moreover, the flotilla fiasco, in which eight Turkish civilians and one dual Turkish-American citizen were killed by Israeli commandos who seized the ship in international waters, served only to deepen Israel’s international isolation and heighten the strategic importance to Israel of Washington’s continued backing.

“Both sides have a strong interest in this meeting being seen as putting the troubles behind us,” said one administration official who deals with Middle East issues before Tuesday’s talks.

In their public remarks, both leaders exhorted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to enter into direct peace talks with Netanyahu as soon as possible. Obama’s Special Envoy George Mitchell has so far held five sessions of “proximity talks” between the two sides.

Abbas, who met with Obama at the White House last month, has said the talks have not yet made sufficient progress on key issues to warrant direct talks, and the president’s efforts to persuade Saudi King Abdullah, whom he hosted here just last week, to press the Palestinian leader on the issue reportedly fell short.

Washington is particularly worried that a lack of tangible progress—including initiating direct talks—by mid-September will likely raise tensions throughout the region. Netanyahu would likely come under heavy pressure from his own Likud Party and its far-right partners in his government to end his moratorium on Jewish settlement activity on the West Bank, and Arab League backing for proximity talks will expire at the same time.

“[My] hope is … that once direct talks have begun, well before the moratorium has expired, that that will create a climate in which everybody feels a greater investment in success,” said Obama, who also hailed what he called the Israeli government’s “restraint” in settlement activity over the past several months.

He also suggested that Washington wants Netanyahu to permit the PA’s U.S. trained and equipped security forces to control a broader area in the West Bank as a key confidence-building measure that could help entice Abbas into direct talks in the coming weeks.

While Obama insisted that he believed Netanyahu was “prepared” to work toward a peace settlement that included a “sovereign state” for the Palestinians, Netanyahu was far more vague. He spoke about his eagerness to “explore the possibility of peace” and insisted on the importance of achieving a “secure peace” that would not “repeat … the situation [in Gaza] where we vacate territories, and those are taken by Iran’s proxies and used as launching ground for terrorist or rocket attacks.”

Instead, Netanyahu focused his remarks on the importance of implementing sanctions against Iran, which he described as “the greatest new threat on the horizon.”

One analyst said Obama’s remarks appeared designed in part to establish linkage between progress on the Palestinian-Israeli front and further pressure on Iran.

“Obama was saying he’s now delivered on tough sanctions on Iran, and he’s pressing Netanyahu on what he’s going to do in return,” said Steve Clemons, head of the American Strategy program at the New America Foundation. “He’s is trying to be a calculating deal-maker and push the reset button with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu doesn’t respond, things could get much worse.”

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.