Rubin explains why President Obama made a deal, and what the basic bargain is:
The US president wants to improve relations with Israel for several reasons.
Obviously, he doesn’t want to be bashing Israel in the period leading up to the November elections. Polls show that for Americans, his administration’s relative hostility toward Israel is its least popular policy. But there is more to this trend.
What Obama wants is to be able to claim a diplomatic success in advancing the Israel-Palestinian “peace process,” perhaps the only international issue he can so spin. Keeping indirect talks going and, even better, moving them up to direct talks is his goal. So he wants Netanyahu’s cooperation for that.
The same point holds regarding the Gaza Strip, where Obama wants to claim he has defused a crisis he has called “unsustainable.” And he also wants to keep the Israel-Arab front calm while he deals with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, seeking above all to avoid crises and confrontations and to keep up his (bogus) bargain of trading flattery for popularity.
So here’s the deal as he sees it: Give Israel some US support in exchange for modest steps that the administration hopes accomplishes its goals. Israel will concede on some things that don’t appreciably hurt its interests in order to maintain good relations with the US.
First, Israel revised the list of goods it permits into the Gaza Strip, the details of which were all agreed on beforehand with the US. The Obama administration will support Israel on Gaza generally, including endorsing its independent investigation of the flotilla issue.
As the Israeli government explained it, the new list “is limited to weapons, war material, and dual-use items.”
Israel is defining dual-use items using an international agreement, the “Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies,” and thus this should be acceptable to Western governments.
Construction material will be carefully monitored and allowed only for specified projects. Israel will keep out dual-use goods including construction materials (concrete and pipes, for example) that can be used by Hamas to build bunkers and rockets.
Israel sees that accommodation within tolerable bounds can work for the interim:
The United States will proclaim that the alleged humanitarian crisis is over and the people of Gaza are doing just fine, ignoring their being subject to a terribly repressive dictatorship. Hamas will denounce the concessions as insufficient and continue efforts to smuggle in weapons, consolidate its rule, and turn Gaza’s children into terrorists. This is the contemporary Western idea of a diplomatic success.
AS I’VE pointed out before, once Israel concluded that there would be no Western commitment for overthrowing the Hamas regime, it might as well go to a containment strategy. This Western policy is terrible but Israel is merely recognizing the real situation and making the best of it. Obama was quoted as saying: “We believe there is a way to make sure that the people of Gaza are able to prosper economically, while Israel is able to maintain its legitimate security needs in not allowing missiles and weapons to get to Hamas.”
Really? How exactly are you going to do that? I know what Obama thinks: The people prosper, the middle class gets stronger, the masses demand moderation and then comes Hamas’s downfall.
This is a view of revolutionary Islamism and the workings of dictatorships that boggles the mind. It is the mindless idea that prosperity brings peace and moderation, and that a regime ready to torture, murder, and indoctrinate people will be easily removed.
There is the possibility of the US government and other Western countries subverting Israel’s position by engaging Hamas (as Russia did lately) but that line can probably be held for the next few years at least. Various Western media and activist groups can try to keep up the notion that the Gaza Strip is a hell on earth (because of Israel) and people are starving. There will be no truth to this, of course, but there was no truth to it before and that didn’t stop them. But their task will be harder.
Israel will contain Palestinian territorial aspirations by making small concessions to Team Obama now:
But Netanyahu’s goal was to make Obama happy with the minimum of risk. Israel will extend its building freeze on the West Bank and east Jerusalem in exchange for the Obama administration’s commitment to endorse its predecessor’s acceptance of Israel retaining “settlement blocs” as part of any peace agreement with the Palestinians.
In other words, if a diplomatic settlement were ever to be reached then borders would be shifted to allow Israel to annex some relatively small areas with a large number of settlers. This would not only improve Israel’s security situation in the event of a peace agreement but also greatly increase support for a flexible policy within Israel.
Containing Iran will be harder:
Another thing Netanyahu wants is for Obama to escalate pressure on Iran regarding that country’s nuclear weapons’ drive. The new sanctions, thanks to Congress, are going to hurt Iran and undermine support for the regime there. It’s not enough, of course, to stop the program. Still, when Iran does get nuclear weapons, Israel will need the United States to take a strong stand in containing Teheran.
Israel hopes for less Obama push after the fall elections--and a friendlier administration come 2013:
Thus, Israel’s strategy is as follows: try very hard to get along with the administration, seek to keep it happy, and avoid confrontation without making any major irreversible concessions or taking serious risks. Have no illusions, but keep the US government focused on Iran as much as possible.
The next Congress will be more likely to constrain the president and who knows what will happen in future. A building freeze might be ended on strong grounds the next time. It is quite possible that Iran, Syria, and other radical forces will so assault the United States and trample on its interests that Obama will be forced to alter course. And there’s always the 2012 presidential election.
This, then, is the best policy for Israel to follow considering the more unattractive options. And for the foreseeable future, Obama will play along.
A Weekly Standard piece details how mainstream media sanitize Hezbollah and its role in Lebanon, while punishing an occasional member who goes too far.
Bottom Line. Israel must manage its affairs judiciously, given a markedly unfriendly administration (ignore last week's nice-nice show & tell at the White House). And it must, as always, cope with a hostile media. If Iran does not join the nuclear club before 2013, Israel might then have a new Presidential partner to stop the nuclear Iran that appears likely to come to pass. No amount of trimming by Israel will get President Obama to help Israel take out Iran's nuclear sites. Unless it can wait until 2013, Israel will have to act alone.
Letter from the Capitol, LFTC, 9/11, National Security, Terrorism, Homeland Security, Nuclear Proliferation, Arms Control, WMD, Foreign Policy, UN, Conservative Politics
Comments