Thoughts on the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting
The meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had been highly anticipated for a number of reasons. Both men had recently ushered in new administrations promising new approaches to their countries' foreign policies. During the campaign, Obama spoke of the advantages of increased diplomacy and the dangers of unilateral military actions, while Netanyahu was widely seen as the candidate least likely to engage in former and most likely to engage in the latter. All these factors contributed to predictions of a clash between the US administration's policies and those favored by Netanyahu. What clues did their first official meeting give to forecast the future relationship between Obama and Netanyahu?
1. The private meeting between the two men lasted almost an hour longer than scheduled. Obama even rearranged his schedule for the day to accommodate the extra time with Netanyahu. This indicates that their discussion was highly substantive.
2. Both men came to the meeting with differing priorities. Netanyahu's top priority was to convince Obama of the urgency of the threat posed by Iran and its quest for nuclear weapons, while Obama sought to convey to Netanyahu the importance of continuing the peace process, both for halting Iran's regional ambitions and for overall US goals in the region.
3. Although there had been the possibility of a joint statement, the meeting did not result in one, indicating that any draft resulted in enough disagreement that separate statements became necessary (as retired U.S. ambassador to Israel Sam Lewis pointed out).
4. Netanyahu's real audience was the Knesset and, as such, he was attempting a balancing act. On the one hand, he was conscious of the need to maintain good relations with a popular American president, and therefore he made statements consistent with that objective, stating that Obama is "pro-Israel" and that Israel doesn't intend to rule the Palestinians. On the other hand, despite Netanyahu's coalition with the Labor Party, there are still many in his own Likud party who oppose a Palestinian state. Given Netanyahu's prior refusal to endorse such a state, supporting it at the press conference would have been seen as Netanyahu "caving in" and might have resulted in the fall of his government.
5. Obama also displayed his characteristic diplomatic tact and skill by alluding to the serious threat posed by a nuclear Iran and mentioning that the US was not "foreclosing a range of steps...in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious," while not actually mentioning the possibility of military action. Obama also outlined his disagreements with Netanyahu on a Palestinian state and settlements while at the same time praising Netanyahu, stating: "Netanyahu has the benefit of having served as Prime Minister previously. He has both youth and wisdom and I think is in a position to achieve the security objectives of Israel, but also bring about historic peace. And I'm confident that he's going to seize this moment." This allowed Obama to satisfy both those who were watching to see if he would push to advance the peace process and also those concerned about maintaining a strong US-Israel relationship.
6. While Obama never mentioned the 2002 Arab peace initiative, he did state, "I actually think that you're going to see movement in - among Arab states that we have not seen before." This stance is consistent with both US and Israeli recognition that Iran and its proxies pose not only a threat to Israel, but to other Arab allies of the US including Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Shimon Peres in particular has called for taking advantage of that opportunity for closer Israeli-Arab cooperation. Recently, Jordan's King Abdullah has also endorsed this analysis by heavily promoting the Arab peace initiative, even coining the term "57-state solution" to describe the end result of recognition of Israel by the entire Muslim world. Obama's alluding to "movement among Arab states" may suggest that the US agrees that a regional approach should be taken to the peace process, rather than simply continuing bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. There has also been talk of Arab states offering Israel new incentives, such as giving El Al the right to fly over Arab airspace and granting visas for Israeli tourists to Arab states, in exchange for Israel freezing settlements and moving a diplomatic process forward.
Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo on June 4th will now be closely watched to see if he will unveil a more specific proposal for the Middle East. While Netanyahu and Obama share the same end-goal with regard to Iran, they may differ on the means to the end. Netanyahu may find that he has trouble balancing the needs of the US with the sentiments of the more right-wing elements in his coalition. Only time will tell if Netanyahu and Obama, both skilled politicians, can find a creative solution that allows both of them to achieve their political goals.
1. The private meeting between the two men lasted almost an hour longer than scheduled. Obama even rearranged his schedule for the day to accommodate the extra time with Netanyahu. This indicates that their discussion was highly substantive.
2. Both men came to the meeting with differing priorities. Netanyahu's top priority was to convince Obama of the urgency of the threat posed by Iran and its quest for nuclear weapons, while Obama sought to convey to Netanyahu the importance of continuing the peace process, both for halting Iran's regional ambitions and for overall US goals in the region.
3. Although there had been the possibility of a joint statement, the meeting did not result in one, indicating that any draft resulted in enough disagreement that separate statements became necessary (as retired U.S. ambassador to Israel Sam Lewis pointed out).
4. Netanyahu's real audience was the Knesset and, as such, he was attempting a balancing act. On the one hand, he was conscious of the need to maintain good relations with a popular American president, and therefore he made statements consistent with that objective, stating that Obama is "pro-Israel" and that Israel doesn't intend to rule the Palestinians. On the other hand, despite Netanyahu's coalition with the Labor Party, there are still many in his own Likud party who oppose a Palestinian state. Given Netanyahu's prior refusal to endorse such a state, supporting it at the press conference would have been seen as Netanyahu "caving in" and might have resulted in the fall of his government.
5. Obama also displayed his characteristic diplomatic tact and skill by alluding to the serious threat posed by a nuclear Iran and mentioning that the US was not "foreclosing a range of steps...in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious," while not actually mentioning the possibility of military action. Obama also outlined his disagreements with Netanyahu on a Palestinian state and settlements while at the same time praising Netanyahu, stating: "Netanyahu has the benefit of having served as Prime Minister previously. He has both youth and wisdom and I think is in a position to achieve the security objectives of Israel, but also bring about historic peace. And I'm confident that he's going to seize this moment." This allowed Obama to satisfy both those who were watching to see if he would push to advance the peace process and also those concerned about maintaining a strong US-Israel relationship.
6. While Obama never mentioned the 2002 Arab peace initiative, he did state, "I actually think that you're going to see movement in - among Arab states that we have not seen before." This stance is consistent with both US and Israeli recognition that Iran and its proxies pose not only a threat to Israel, but to other Arab allies of the US including Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Shimon Peres in particular has called for taking advantage of that opportunity for closer Israeli-Arab cooperation. Recently, Jordan's King Abdullah has also endorsed this analysis by heavily promoting the Arab peace initiative, even coining the term "57-state solution" to describe the end result of recognition of Israel by the entire Muslim world. Obama's alluding to "movement among Arab states" may suggest that the US agrees that a regional approach should be taken to the peace process, rather than simply continuing bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. There has also been talk of Arab states offering Israel new incentives, such as giving El Al the right to fly over Arab airspace and granting visas for Israeli tourists to Arab states, in exchange for Israel freezing settlements and moving a diplomatic process forward.
Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo on June 4th will now be closely watched to see if he will unveil a more specific proposal for the Middle East. While Netanyahu and Obama share the same end-goal with regard to Iran, they may differ on the means to the end. Netanyahu may find that he has trouble balancing the needs of the US with the sentiments of the more right-wing elements in his coalition. Only time will tell if Netanyahu and Obama, both skilled politicians, can find a creative solution that allows both of them to achieve their political goals.
posted by E
at 9:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home