BICOM

Key Points

• Monday’s meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu went beyond shallow diplomatic pleasantries as both leaders engaged honestly and seriously with the challenging issues at hand.
• Differences of opinion were apparent, but so was the determination of both sides to find common ground, and not lose sight of the fundamental importance of the bilateral relationship.
• Despite prior disagreements about sequencing, both sides agreed that Palestinian and Iranian issues must be addressed in parallel, and Obama gave new indications about his timescale for diplomacy with Iran.
• Obama reiterated his commitment to the two state solution, and his demands on Israel regarding settlements, but also emphasised the need for the Palestinians and the Arab world to deliver their part, recognising that Israel cannot make peace alone.

Introduction: An important beginning

The impression from the public statements following Monday’s meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and from the details emerging from officials close to the proceedings, is that in their meeting, neither held back from expressing their frank views.[i] The fact that their meeting overran by a considerable period was the first indication that the talks had gone beyond pre-prepared formalities and pleasantries, and got down into the difficult issues at hand. In the televised question and answer session in the oval office, some of the differences of opinion were apparent, but so was the determination of both sides to find common ground, and not lose sight of the fundamental importance of the bilateral relationship. It would be wrong to draw too many concrete conclusions from this initial meeting, the full details of which are still emerging. Obama has yet to hold important meetings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and President Mubarak of Egypt before giving a major speech in Cairo on June 4. But nonetheless, the occasion provided some important new insights into the policies and approaches of both governments, in particular the Americans.

Policy agreements and differences

Both leaders reiterated the special nature of the US-Israel relationship. Support for Israel as a Jewish state, and as the only democracy in the Middle East, is deep rooted not only in the strategic culture, but in the political culture of the United States. Though Obama was relatively understated on this subject, he did not hesitate to declare from the outset that, “when it comes to my policies towards Israel and the Middle East… Israel’s security is paramount.”

But overall it is clear that this was not a meeting focussed on exchanging pleasantries. Rather this was a meeting in which Obama showed a real and determined engagement in the issues. For those who want to see historic change in the region, that is far more significant than looking for evidence of whether the two men would enjoy drinking beer together.

When it comes to the issues, Iran is Israel’s principle concern and both leaders agreed that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a substantial threat. It was widely anticipated ahead of the meeting that this would be Netanyahu’s main focus, and that he would look for Obama to put a timetable on his policy of engagement. Obama specifically resisted setting a specific, ‘artificial deadline’, and made clear that serious engagement would not take place ahead of Iran’s presidential election in June. But he did say that if talks began after those elections, it should be possible to gauge by the end of the year whether they are, “moving in the right direction.” Obama’s decision not to put a specific red line on the process is an insight in to the way he wants to handle the Iranians for now. Iran has manipulated deadlines that have been placed on it in the past, and it appears that Obama would currently rather not limit his own room for manoeuvre and keep the Iranians guessing, whilst making clear he will not wait indefinitely.

In terms of the perceived causal relationship between dealing with Iran, and dealing with the Palestinian issue, the differences of opinion on sequencing that were visible before the meeting were narrowed in the leaders’ statements. Obama said explicitly that he thinks making peace between Palestinians and Israelis strengthens the hand of the international community in dealing with Iran. Netanyahu did not reject this connection, but stated his belief that the link runs both ways, saying: “It would help, obviously, unite a broad front against Iran if we had peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And conversely, if Iran went nuclear, it would threaten the progress towards peace and destabilize the entire area, and threaten existing peace agreement.” In terms of the practical policy implications, both leaders agreed that the Palestinian issue and the Iranian issue were important to address on their own merits, and that it was important to move forward on both fronts simultaneously.

With regard to the Palestinian issue, both leaders reiterated their previously stated positions without saying much that was new. Netanyahu did not follow Obama’s explicit commitment to Palestinian statehood, and reiterated his formula that that in ending the conflict the Palestinians should, “govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel”. Finally he tried to reduce the difference to one of semantics, by adding that “that the terminology will take care of itself if we have the substantive understanding.” He also reiterated his readiness to begin peace negotiations with the Palestinian immediately.

Whilst Obama favours a top-down approach to the peace process that includes not only the Palestinians but the entire region – and hinted again at new concession to Israel that might be forthcoming from the Arab world – he also wants to see tangible changes on the ground in the Palestinian Territories. Netanyahu has repeatedly stressed his commitment in the past to a bottom up approach, by focussing on improving the Palestinian economy and quality of life. But Obama made clear that he wants to see commitments made under the Roadmap and Annapolis fulfilled, and he said clearly, “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward.” Obama did not publicly address the specifics of movement and access in the West bank, dismantlement of outposts or halting ‘natural growth’ in existing settlement, nor did he put any specific timetable on the issue, but he made clear his desire to see the issue addressed.

Whilst cynics may have interpreted Netanyahu’s decision to focus on the economic situation on the ground as a way of avoiding difficult final status issues, now his commitment will be judged by those far more measurable ground level steps. Netanyahu might have tried to avoid pressure to take real steps on the ground by conceding the principle of a two state solution as the basis for open ended negotiations, but he chose not do so. With the US aware that the two state solution cannot be fully implemented whilst the Palestinians remain divided, the focus will be on making the circumstances more conducive, and Obama has made it clear he will now be looking for Israel to deliver.

At the same time, he recognised this was a difficult issue for Israel, and stressed the responsibilities of the other players. He noted that, “the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution.” He also stressed that, “the other Arab states have to be more supportive and be bolder in seeking potential normalization with Israel.” Netanyahu warmly welcomed the regional dimension to the peace process that Obama is promoting, and spoke enthusiastically about his desire, “to broaden the circle of peace to include others in the Arab world.”

So the shape of a process, which includes Arab states rewarding Israel for concessions on the ground in the Palestinian Territories with diplomatic steps towards normalisation, appears to be taking shape. Obama’s speech in Cairo on June 4, part of a dramatic outreach to the moderate Arab world, will be a key stage in the development of his regional plan. But it must be seen in the context of his expectation that all sides have a part to play.  

Another important issue that came up, which received less attention ahead of the meeting, is Gaza. Whilst President Obama spoke firmly about the problem of Palestinian rocket fire and the need to work seriously with the Egyptians to stop weapons smuggling, he also expressed his concerns about the humanitarian situation due to Israel’s border restrictions. This issue has been on hold, awaiting the outcome of Palestinian unity talks. Whilst neither the US or Israel want to take steps that will bolster the Hamas regime in Gaza, Obama’s comments add weight to the sense of international determination to resolve the issue and get reconstruction aid in.

Conclusion: No misunderstandings

Obama is not only the President of the world’s most powerful nation, but he is enjoying a moment of enormous political strength, both domestically and internationally. His language and demeanour in his meeting with Netanyahu reflected deep self-belief in his broad approach and his ability to deliver, as well as his clear expectations of Israel to do its part. He spoke about his, “great confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s political skills, but also his historical vision,” and his confidence that, “he’s going to rise to the occasion.” Netanyahu, for his part, clearly pressed his case in a forceful manner, and will have left Obama in no doubt about the urgency and scale of Israel’s pressing security concerns.

If Obama maintains the commitment he showed this week, he will force tough choices on Netanyahu and the members of his government. It will not be easy for Netanyahu to square Obama’s demands on settlements, and his insistence on a two state solution, with the right-wing of his party and his coalition. But it should be recalled that the complex and fluid nature of Israeli coalition politics has a history of creating surprising possibilities.

At the same time Obama’s comments also showed his awareness that Israel can only do so much. Without Palestinian reform, a Palestinian state cannot be created. Without Arab flexibility, a regional peace initiative will not get off the ground. And without a determined approach, Iran will exploit US diplomatic efforts to continue its progress towards a nuclear weapon. Obama’s message, that now is a time for action, is being sent to all the parties in the region.

 

---

[i] A full transcript of the remarks is available at www.whitehouse.gov.