Strategic Alliance

Commentary By Ron Beasley

From the NRO's crazy corner we have this:

The End of America’s Strategic Alliance with Israel?

From an Israeli perspective, Pres. Barack Obama’s speech today in Cairo was deeply disturbing. Both rhetorically and programmatically, Obama’s speech was a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.

So what was that "special relationship"?  Often it was praise for what Israel said while ignoring what they actually did.  This line from Obama's speech in Cairo is important.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs.

It's little wonder that the right wing Israeli's and their friends in the US are concerned.  Over at the Asia Times Ian Williams thinks Obama is laying a trap for Likud.

Whereas the Israelis only accepted the obligations of the road map with a whole list of exclusions that no other party has accepted, Obama reaffirmed that "the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear ... Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."

It is worth remembering that his speech, while directed explicitly at the Muslim world, had "collateral" listeners. They include not just the Israeli factions but also their supporters in the United States, particularly in Congress where the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last week secured 329 signatures of members of Congress, for a letter calling on the administration to work "closely and privately" with Israel.

The Israeli government is clearly hurting, bewildered by the administration's refusal to emulate its predecessors in overlooking clear breaches of previous Israeli commitments. "Look what we say, not at what we do," has always been a cardinal principle of Israeli diplomacy - and it has been failing. Almost as close is the ability to get Israel's version of talks and meetings in the press as the definitive version. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israeli journalists this week that he had asked the US administration to cut back the briefings in which it laid out its policy, in effect leaving Israel to spin the results. Obama is unlikely to agree.

The protests from Israeli right-wingers about US interference in internal Israeli politics should raise some smiles from all sides in Washington, not least since they are paralleled by calls from other colleagues in the Knesset (parliament) for the lobby to get to work on Obama quickly.

But Obama's laidback rhetoric is a trap. It successfully entices Israeli hardliners to come out explicitly with their renunciation of the Road Map and the whole consensus, in a sense exposing themselves to American politicians who might otherwise be pressured into wrecking moves.

But the combination of Obama's popularity, not least with American Jewish voters, and the latter's exasperation with the neo-conservative/Likud alliance gives the White House some serious leverage to fight off such attempts to defang the new policy. However, the White House clearly knows what to expect, which is one reason for the nuance: firmly stating longstanding US official policy and restating Israeli promises while, so far eschewing overt condemnation and threats.

So what we may be seeing is the end of that "special relationship" that allowed the tail to wag the dog. 

Comments

[Mark Thompson]

I have to say, I think no one summed up the idiocy of positions like this better than Jeffrey Goldberg yesterday:

"An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible."

For purposes of this discussion, you can substitute "movement conservative partisans" for "right-wing Israelis," and it holds just as true.

[Peter G.]

Or you could call it a renewal of a special relationship. I could never see that "tail wagging the dog" meme. I think a more accurate analogy would have been the dog being indifferent to what the tail was doing. The colonization of the West Bank occurred because of indifference on the part of various US administrations and not because of encouragement by them. I prefer evolutionary change to revolutionary change so I'm quite frankly pleased with the way Obama is going about this. The Israeli people worry a great deal about their relationship with the US and these new changes are likely to drive opinion to the left and maybe get the moderates back into the driver seat.