FRIENDS
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
All Smiles
08-Jul-2010
With smiles, compliments, and a strong dose of hospitality, President Obama did his best to provide a dramatically improved backdrop for U.S.-Israeli relations during Binyamin Netanyahu's July 6 visit to the White House, compared to the climate that greeted the Israeli prime minister upon his strained April visit. This included strikingly specific commitments on key issues important to Israeli security. Netanyahu, in turn, responded with generous and deferential praise for U.S. leadership on the broad array of Middle East policy issues. Given the near-term political and policy imperatives of both leaders, the result was a meeting doomed to succeed. Lurking behind the warmth and banter, however, remain tactical obstacles on how to proceed in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations as well as strategic uncertainty about how each side views the other's regional priorities.
From Domestic Politics to Strategic Interest
It is a mistake to argue, as have many observers, that Tuesday's meeting was a defeat for Obama or a victory for Netanyahu. In fact, both leaders came to the event with a political imperative to change the public image of their relationship.
On one side, Netanyahu seems to have understood that Israeli voters view management of the relationship with Washington as one of their prime minister's principal responsibilities, holding him accountable for maintaining warm and productive ties even with an administration that, in the view of many, might not reciprocate. On the other side, Obama seems to have recognized that the punitive spirit that added fuel to the fire of mini-crises in May 2009 and March 2010 ran counter to the deep well of popular support for strong U.S.-Israeli relations in the American heartland, in key parts of the Democratic Party, and on Capitol Hill, garnering him little political advantage in the process.
No less important for both leaders was repairing the strategic implications of public discord. For Israel, the appearance of distance from Washington is a blow to Israeli deterrence, welcome news for its adversaries, and an invitation for some friendly nations (e.g., in Europe) to distance themselves from Israel even further. For America, shabby treatment of one ally is a signal for others to take cover; even U.S. allies who are not friends of Israel, such as some Arab states, surely looked on with concern at how Washington seemed to be treating what is widely viewed as its closest partner in the Middle East. The result, therefore, was Tuesday's reclamation effort.
Beyond the Handshakes
Apart from the atmospherics, which were themselves the main headline, the two leaders made several significant pieces of news in their meeting:
Timing of direct talks. President Obama said he hoped that the inauguration of direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, replacing the current indirect "proximity" talks, would occur "well before" the end-of-September expiration of Israel's moratorium on West Bank settlement construction. Such talks would, as the president put it, "create a climate in which everybody feels a greater investment in success." This is diplo-speak for suggesting that although the original rationale for the moratorium was to satisfy an unpalatable U.S. demand, the opening of direct talks should give the Israelis a more sustainable and acceptable rationale to extend the moratorium.
Although Netanyahu promised his own "concrete steps" -- most likely in terms of movement and access in the West Bank and augmented powers for the widely praised progress of Palestinian security forces -- the net result was an added dose of pressure on Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who has so far been equivocal on the transition to direct talks. In a practical sense, however, it is unclear how much real pressure is being exerted; in the end, Abbas's appeal to Palestinians rests on providing an end to occupation through diplomacy, which could only happen through direct talks anyway.
Far more uncertain is whether the mere formality of convening direct talks -- meetings that the Palestinians are likely to make sure are sterile, so as to compel the United States to play the role of active mediator as early as possible -- will be enough to create inside Israel a climate conducive to extending the moratorium. Given that Israeli governments had, for the entire period from the Oslo Accords until the Obama inauguration, held direct talks with Palestinians without such a moratorium, some around Netanyahu will argue that Israel should not pay in settlement coin for something that should happen in the normal order of diplomacy. Resolving that issue will be a major test of Netanyahu's leadership.
Nuclear issues. In his post-meeting statement, President Obama articulated in stunning clarity the U.S. acceptance of Israel's policy of nuclear opacity (i.e., neither confirming nor denying its possession of nuclear weapons) and what is effectively the "Israeli exemption" to membership in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) regime: "We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it's in, and the threats that are leveled against us -- against it, that Israel has unique security requirements. It's got to be able to respond to threats or any combination of threats in the region. And that's why we remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel's security. And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests."
In the official report of the leaders' working lunch, the White House spokesman gave further substance to this commitment with respect to the convening of an international conference on creating a Middle East nuclear-free zone, as envisioned in the NPT final document. Indeed, Obama specifically promised Netanyahu that "the conference will only take place if all countries feel confident that they can attend, and that any efforts to single out Israel will make the prospects of convening such a conference unlikely." That so much of their time was taken up with nuclear policy matters -- and that so much of this was made public -- was a result of the utter shock felt within Israel's security establishment upon Washington's acquiescence to the NPT document. That shock was on two levels: first, that the United States would accede to the document after leading Israel to believe it would stand firm against both singling out Israel as a nonadherent and calling for the international disarmament conference; and second, that the Obama administration's global interests (in this case, in nonproliferation) would trump special relations with Israel, a pattern Israel fears may repeat itself on other issues.
American pledges of support. Lost in the swirl of conviviality were two specific pledges of American support to Israel that could have real-world consequences very soon. According to the official readout of the White House lunch, "the President told the Prime Minister he recognizes that Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats, and that only Israel can determine its security needs. The President pledged to continue U.S. efforts to combat all international attempts to challenge the legitimacy of the State of Israel."
The first commitment -- reiterating the independence of Israeli security decisions -- has implications on a wide range of pressing issues, from preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons to the possible deployment of international forces tasked with implementing a future Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement (as proposed by Abbas and reportedly supported by senior Obama administration officials). The second commitment -- combating delegitimization of Israel -- is a live issue at various UN forums, including the pending decision by the UN secretary-general to establish his own inquiry into the Gaza flotilla incident. Other efforts in this vein could occur once Turkey assumes the presidency of the Security Council in September. With terms like "always," "any," "only," and "all," President Obama set high standards for himself with these commitments -- standards that are much easier to judge than the looser language about there being "no space" between Washington and Israel on matters of security, a phrase from recent exchanges that was evidently not part of this meeting's lexicon.
Conclusion
This new "era of good feelings" on the bilateral front does not, by itself, resolve thorny problems that will confront the two parties in September. Still, it is almost certainly a necessary, if not sufficient, factor in defusing those coming minefields and will likely define the relationship at least through November. That is when the results of U.S. midterm elections will have their inevitable impact on how the Obama administration orders its domestic and foreign policy priorities for the second half of this presidential term, and on how foreign capitals view the strength and tenacity of the American president.
Indeed, if any issue hovered over the Obama-Netanyahu tete-a-tete, it was the question of prioritization. For Netanyahu, the issue seems clear: as he said at the outset of his public remarks at the White House, "The greatest new threat on the horizon, the single most dominant issue for many of us, is the prospect that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons," and the rest of his comments flowed from that opening statement. These words suggest that Iran is, without doubt, the most important issue for Israeli security, though not necessarily the most urgent; Netanyahu did not imply that decisions on assessing the efficacy of sanctions need to be made very soon, nor that decisions on preventive military action are imminent. In practice, U.S. officials will look for whether Israel's prioritization of the Iran threat has an impact on how the Israeli government approaches other issues.
In contrast, Obama's recounting of his discussion with Netanyahu began with Gaza, moved to Iran, went back to the peace process and then ended with a statement on the NPT. It was, the president said, an "excellent" exchange -- not "cordial," "constructive," or "frank," but "excellent." Still, he offered no real clue as to which of those four issues mattered most. Some may be more urgent than others, but it is unclear which one he believes is most important -- in other words, which one will top his Middle East policy agenda after November. The real task of U.S.-Israeli relations in the weeks ahead is to build on Tuesday's success to align the two leaders' strategic priorities in advance of that critical decision.
AUTHOR
Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
kooshan
by Doctor X on Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:48 PM PDTDo you even know whom you are precisely pointing your gun at? So which is it: That we are not in tune with the current politically popular position in iran, Or this irreisponsible bunch/massess?
You know what the real problem is? it is not that we are outta touch with this or that specific issue or trend inside or outside of iran, it is that a majority of us has the tendency to overplay this blame game and when something happens quickly start pointing fingers all over the field.
What we should really be puzzled about is why after such a long tim e we have defly managed to retain such tendency.
Excellent comment eronman!
by marhoum Kharmagas on Sat Jul 10, 2010 08:28 PM PDTeronman says: "...... Meanwhile, just weigh any 2 babies born on the same day in Tel Aviv and Ramallah. There's your real crime."
Let's hope fascist Israelis and their stooges don't get a chance to do the same to Iranians.
Kooshan
by benross on Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:44 PM PDTI start with your last paragraph. Intellectuals who helped and legitimized an anti-modernity revolution.
All I'm doing is to correct their traitorous wrongdoing. People at large may not associate 'modernity' with their everyday life concerns. But they do associate the message of modernity with their well being. They have a historic memory about that. And a historic memory about the wrong they inflicted to it over thirty years ago.
Don't expect justification of reasoning of the same bunch who only want to cover their ass and hide behind some sort of filthy 'reality'. Not from me anyway.
That 'reality' was supposed to be the presidency of Moosavi wasn't it?!
Benross
by Kooshan on Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:05 AM PDTYou say:
"in my pro-modernity mind"
I think this is the key to understanding why we (Iraniayeh kharej az goad) have hard time to understand and analyze political stance in Iran. Most of us have a major disconnect with public concience and aspirations in iran, therefore we get puzzled why things don't go the way we think they should.
Except for few well to do and pro-modernity minds (!) in Iran, majority of people do not consider referendum, freedom and democracy as their imminent and 1st order needs. In a collective measure, Iranian people want a stable and prosperous economy that will yield good standard of living. They do not even think that freedom will bring them their immnent needs.
Lack of responsibility from masses and treason of our intellectual minds are the major obstacles our nation have in becoming heavyweight in this modern era. We all share the blame.
Haji
by Fred on Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:39 AM PDTHaji nuke lobbyist for the Islamis Rapist Republic in part makes the following Islamist points:
1- Those in exile opposing his IRR expressing their opinion on Iranian.com are not that relevant.
2- The opposition in exile which counts is the one the nuke lobbyist is part of and has a recognized leader inside Iran.
3-Khowing fully well that Haji’s Islamist Rapist brethrens have killed off, imprisoned or forced to flee any non-Islamist real opposition to his IRR, Haji nuke asks for the name(s) of such opposition inside Iran.
4-Haji nuke says the leaders of opposition are Mousavi (a charlatan Ali Shariati devotee and in love with his Imam Khomeini) a former two terms IRR Prime Minister and till recently a member of one of the official organs of IRR, the other, Karoubi (a corrupt mullah who can’t stop praising the mass murdere Khomeini) a former Islamist Majlis Speaker. But Haji says;” The idea that they are part of the IRI leadership is even more ridiculous.”
To points 1,2,3 and 4, Khodeti Haji.
Ps. your newest Islamist leader, Mousavi, was the Prime Minister when IRR massacred Iranians in its dungeons. It is upon you Islamists to explain why this person who in any sane country would face prosecution if not for the actual mass murders but for dereliction of duty, has any qualification except total devotion to mass murderer Khomeini and charlatan Ali Shariati to be a “leader”.
Referendum
by benross on Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:27 AM PDTIn my pro-modernity mind, IRI is illegal. I don't care what constitute legal or illegal inside it. If people wants it, they'll get it. I only speak my mind like everybody else. But 'referendum' is a banner I saw in the street protests too.
Last year when I posted a comment somewhere (I don't remember where, not in IC. I wasn't here yet) mentioning referendum, someone posted a followup stating he was an American journalist and he was on the streets of Tehran and it was there where he first encountered the expression of request for a referendum frequently. He wanted me to elaborate on that.
I say to you what I said to him then. Referendum is a genuine desire of people. The feasibility of it, is only a matter of time and increasing number of people who verbalize it.
Spell it out BR
by Mammad on Sat Jul 10, 2010 09:39 AM PDTFirst of all, the opposition in exiles has existed for 31 years. Nothing has ever come out of it. The characters that you presumably refer to are at least 50 years old. Others are in their 70s and 80s. People who comment here on IC do not count, unlike what some people would like to pretend. Commenting on the IC will not overthrow the IRI. So, exactly who are you talking about when you say opposition in exile? Please spell it out.
Yes, there is an active and realistic opposition in exile, at least in the view of people like me. But, they defer the leadership to inside Iran with their recognized leaders. They concede that they only play a supporting role.
Secondly, what opportunity has Obama (whom I voted for, which I regret) offered the Iranian people? Since when, ever since the criminal coup of 1953, ANY US president has offered ANYTHING positive to Iranian people? You mean sanctions, coupled with dispatching extra forces around Iran? Aiding Jundallah and PJAK? Please describe the opportunity with complete details.
Third, the idea that people like Mousavi and Karroubi control the oil money is not just ridiculous, but out of this world. The idea that they are part of the IRI leadership is even more ridiculous. So, please describe why you say that.
Fourth, let us assume that whatever you say is 100 percent correct. Spell it out, please, which opposition in Iran with which leadership are you talking about assisting? Do not give me the absurd, hollow, empty of substance slogan that "our youths are our leaders." Yes, 20 years from now they might be leaders (assuming they do not change by then), but that means you are willing to wait that long.
Having fantasies is good. But, at some point one must come back to Earth and confront the problems as they exist, not the way one would like to pretend.
Mammad
Eroonman: You made so much sense until you said ….
by reader1 on Fri Jul 09, 2010 01:56 PM PDT“I think ALL the Palestinians should be packed up and sent to Jordan”.
Are you suggesting that the west bank Palistenians should be thrown out of their land and leave it to European Ashkenazi jews? I am bewildered by the rationality of your argument.
Constitution has changed before and will change again.
by No Fear on Fri Jul 09, 2010 01:14 PM PDTEven the most controversial subject as the velayate fagih, has been changed in our constitution twice before ( once with the help of Montazeri it was introduced, and once it was changed after Khomeinis death ).
Laws are introduced and changed from our constitution regularly by our parliament. Where do you come up with your non sense?
Benross: Referendum is illegal
by eroonman on Fri Jul 09, 2010 01:02 PM PDTThe IRI is far smarter than to allow the people to say or do anything that would change the Status Quo.
As you suggested better or single organization, and "getting their acts together" isn't going to make the IRI nervous enough to budge. The IRI constitution made referendums (and amendments) illegal, so
there goes that idea.
At this time, ANY objection to the current constitution is illegal and an act of treason, punishable by death or possibly imprisonment with little trial.
While it sucks, this is the law in Iran today. There is no changing it by referendum, or amendment, or votes by the senate, or especially the people's mere will. There isn't any rules or regulations in the Constitution to allow it to change itself. Fix itself. This is it. Iranians can either love it, or leave it (Iran). These are the only 2 choices available.
Unless you want to talk about that other vague 3rd option.
Now, as far as Iran
by benross on Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:17 AM PDTNow, as far as Iran goes....
Read my comments.Benross: None of this relates to Iran...
by eroonman on Fri Jul 09, 2010 09:33 AM PDTThe piece is a self aggrandizing congratulatory tome on US Israeli relations coming back on track. As if they were ever off.
While I abhor Iran getting a Nuke, this is merely the Shah's plans dusted off and re-invigorated by the IRI for obvious self preservationist reasons.
The iRI surrounded by US forces on 90% of it's borders feels a bit twitchy. Which based on it's Shiite Sheytooni thus far, it should damn well feel nervous.
BUT, if we are going to talk (on this site) about backslapping US/Israeli cordiality and nuances of facial expressions, at least I think the plight of the ragged ghetto-neshins in Gaza and the occupied territories (Look how de-humanized things have become! Even Israel calls it that!) ought to be seated at this lavish White House Kosher dinner party.
I'm not an idealist, personally I think ALL the Palestinians should be packed up and sent to Jordan. Jordan is Palestine, don't mistake a British Empire map-maker's fantasy as an actual country. The ethnicity of Jordanians isn't Jordanian, it's Palestinian!
So why bother fight the Israelis for a plot of Gaza? Pack them up and ship them off to Jordan, have US Congress, the Arabs and Japanese and Chinese put up a $100B re-settlement fund and be done with it.
And no they don't get to have Jerusalem. Let the Israelis manage that tourist problem. Beyt-ol-Moghadas isn't really. Mecca is. Give it up for Chrissakes! (metaphorically speaking).
Now, as far as Iran goes....
Sacrificial lamb
by benross on Fri Jul 09, 2010 07:34 AM PDTThis is a case that the lamb, willingly and knowingly is sacrificing itself, if it keeps listening to green 'leaders', avoid to get organized -first outside of Iran and then assisting inside movement- and if it leaves things to enroll by themselves.
IRI (which includes green 'leaders') is organized, has the nation money at its disposal and plenty of bloggers in IC.
On the other hand, Obama is offering an unprecedented opportunity to Iranian people to liberate themselves, if they get their acts together. Get organized (a single organization) with a clear mandate to restore the legitimate constitution, preferably by forcing IRI to put it for a free referendum.
You can lament. You can act. It's up to you. Don't blame Obama.
Obama is offering ordinary Iranian citizens as sacrificial lambs
by reader1 on Fri Jul 09, 2010 01:03 AM PDT... to appease Israel. Peace for Arab nations, peace for Israelis and a life of misery for ordinary Iranians.
Things have evolved for sure on middle-east issue
by Kooshan on Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:36 AM PDTI mean, we are at thestage of acknowlegment...way past stage of denial.
We now hear explanations why US should support Israel. All the questions that Obama now answers went unheard and undocumented in media in recent few decades. Now we hear answers to them
Next is the point of capitulation....and I hope that it will be something somewhat peaceful like the one in South Africa.
I for one think that US has a lot more to gain from supporting popular democratic fronts in middle-east than supporting Israel/Arab-dictators.
I means why should we pay >$50,000,000,000 to puppets and Israel in middle-east to keep animosity alive while we can just spend few $million to support popular democratic fronts?
iroonman
by benross on Thu Jul 08, 2010 08:07 PM PDTWhen Palestinians invited you to go at the bargaining table on their behalf, start preaching. In the meantime, focus on issues that concerns Iran, as I did.
Pastor bill redneck:
by Bavafa on Thu Jul 08, 2010 06:53 PM PDT"Too ke bill zani ye billy dar koone khodet bezan"
Take that Paloon off your back and come to the 2010 AD.
Mehrdad
Hey BaWafa, he doesn't even address you by name?
by pastor bill rennick on Thu Jul 08, 2010 06:47 PM PDTModernity means removing paloon from your back and bringing you from the 1400 AD to 2010 AD!
Benross: Can you please
by benross on Thu Jul 08, 2010 06:25 PM PDTBenross: Can you please define 'modernity' in the region?
Not you.
Logical piece by eroonman
by Abarmard on Thu Jul 08, 2010 04:44 PM PDTGreat comment.
Eroonman: Very admirably piece written, thank you
by Bavafa on Thu Jul 08, 2010 05:28 PM PDTMehrdad
Benross: Can you please define 'modernity' in the region?
by Bavafa on Thu Jul 08, 2010 04:22 PM PDTAnd do you see any examples in the last 50 years or so that American has worked actively or behind the scenes to promote that atmosphere?
Under what condition/circumstance do you believe that 'modernity' will take shape?
And under what circumstance/condition do you believe Israel will accept peace?
Respectfully
Mehrdad
Yet more whitewash over the main issues...
by eroonman on Thu Jul 08, 2010 04:19 PM PDTWhile the public posing might be needed to assuage the hurt feelings and pride of the massive lobbies and power brokering behind US/Israeli relations, and smiles replaced glares in this recent visit,
The unvbelievably disappoining ironic fact remains plain as day:
Soley based on their enthnicity, Israel has Ghettofied Palestinians in the occupied territories on a scale fast approaching Nazi Germany's Warsaw. If anyone should know the inhumanity of this, it is the Jewish people. To allow the sort of daily indignity that goes on, at the hands of the very same people who have historically suffered it the most, is baffling beyond any arguable reason. One would expect that a moral god-fearing people who have suffered so much, would be the last ones to impose these conditions on any fellow human being. Yet the obvious distinct hatred and treatment of the Palestinians as common vermin, is nothing short of stunning. Worse, is the world's (especially the Arabs included) continued tolerance of it, as ensured by the US support.
Now we are to read a pithy piece penned by a Jewish-American "expert" extolling the many virtues and the mutual benefits of warmer US-Israeli relations this week, and the titillating analysis of who smiled the most, who held the car door open for whom, and what any of that means, and how good it is that relations are back on track once again. We are now meant to breathe a sigh of actual relief!
Meanwhile, just weigh any 2 babies born on the same day in Tel Aviv and Ramallah. There's your real crime.
L'Chaim Mr. Satloff. Seriously, L'Chaim.
Lets sum this up If we accept this assessment and conclusion
by Bavafa on Thu Jul 08, 2010 04:13 PM PDT- American commitment to Israel security, which technically means American soldiers can go to war and die for Israel
- American acceptance, cover up and protection for Israel nuclear arsenal and its exemption to nuclear nonproliferation
- American support and cover up to drag the peace process as long as Israel sees fit
- American pledge of financial aid to Israel while unemployed Americans may lose their livelihoods and dignity.
- American support and backing against any prosecution of war crimes committed by State of Israel
Can some one explain to me what is it in this for Americans?
Truly, what a shameful way to concede American foreign policy and power to another nation [Israel]
Mehrdad
The Israel nuclear issue
by benross on Thu Jul 08, 2010 04:12 PM PDTThe Israel nuclear issue will remain 'opaque' as long as 'modernity' is not dominating the region. After that, it will fade away as a non-issue, easily solvable.
So on one hand, Israel is correct in assessing the IRI danger as the dominant issue for her survival, and on the other hand, U.S is correct in playing a balancing act in favour of progress of modernity in the whole region. As long as Israel has the assurance of US, there is no fear of escalation of tensions in the region and this has been reflected in latest statements of Netanyahu stating that 'Israel is not seeking a war'. It is still in the realm of cautious diplomatic statements, but clearly away from 'bomb bomb Iran' rhetoric.