THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XI, Issue # 154, July 3, 2009
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
CUT BIBI NATANYAHU SOME SLACK:
Why Obama's Hard Line on Israeli Settlements Is Counterproductive
By Dr. Steven J. Rosen
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, & THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT: OBAMA'S HARD-LINE POSITION ON
ISRAEL'S WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS -- WILL OBAMA'S RADICALISM & HAM-HANDED DIPLOMACY SABOTAGE THE
LONG-STANDING ALLIANCE BETWEEN ISRAEL & THE U.S.A.? THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY AS A SUBVERSIVE THREAT TO
AMERICA'S VITAL NATIONAL INTERESTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST
FULL STORY:
Benjamin Netanyahu was sworn in as Israel's Prime Minister on March 31, 2009. Within weeks, the Obama administration
launched a high-profile public campaign to confront Israel's new leader on the issue that most divides the two
governments: Israel's settlements in the West Bank.
It was an unusual way to welcome the new leader of a close friend of the United States. Why did the Obama team veer
so sharply off the normal course? Diplomacy toward an ally normally begins with building relations of trust on areas
of agreement, and only later engaging discreetly on issues where there are sharp differences. Why, instead, did the
Obama administration team roll out a campaign of diktats, beginning May 28, 2009, in front of cameras at a press
conference with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, virtually nailing a decree to Netanyahu's door announcing that President
Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions," as U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton put it. Why so dismissively brush aside understandings crafted by the George W. Bush
administration, understandings that had achieved a significant reduction of settlement construction, albeit not a total
freeze? Why would an unnamed source in the administration boast to the Washington Post on June 30, 2009, "We
have not changed our position at all, nor has the President authorized any negotiating room"?
One explanation for this bizarre behavior is "Yes, we can" syndrome -- the prevailing belief in Washington that this
President holds 99 percent of the cards and can get people to do things beyond what normally can be achieved. Even
some in Jerusalem believe that Netanyahu cannot say "no" to Barack Obama, especially on the settlement issue, where
Israel has little support in the U.S. Congress and even the American Jewish community is divided and paralyzed.
The theory that Obama holds the high cards rests on the results that George H.W. Bush got when he confronted a
different Likud prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, over settlements in September, 1991. Nine months after Bush threw down
the settlements gauntlet, Israeli voters ejected Shamir and replaced him with Labor's Yitzhak Rabin, opening the way to
the Oslo Accords.
But this comparison is misleading. Obama's confrontation is taking place mere weeks after the formation of a new Israeli
government, not months before an Israeli prime minister has to face his voters again. What's more, Israeli voters have
elected the most Conservative Knesset in Israel's history. The parties of the Left -- Labor and Meretz -- had 56 seats in
1992, but they have shrunk to 16 seats today. The real pressure on Netanyahu in today's Israel is from the Right. If
Obama hopes to invigorate the country's moribund Left, he's in for a rude shock: the gains it would need to force either
new elections or a different coalition, one more compliant to U.S. demands, are daunting.
Moreover, the Hawks have many ways to constrain and compel the Prime Minister. In fact, Netanyahu is in the opposite
position of Shamir. Succumbing to U.S. pressure is the one thing that might bring Bibi down, but keeping the
Conservatives in his coalition offers him every prospect of serving a full term until the next scheduled Israeli election in
2013. Netanyahu can, and will, say "no." if his only choice is the one the Obama team is now offering: total capitulation.
Netanyahu does have the political strength to reaffirm previous compromises made by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert to
limit natural growth. This includes the "construction line" principle that would restrict development to infill construction
within already built-up areas while preventing further geographic expansion beyond the outer line of existing structures.
But the Israeli Prime Minister does not have the legal authority, let alone the necessary political foundation, to impose an
absolute and complete freeze on all construction in all settlements. Few in Israel are prepared to freeze construction in the
"blocs," today primarily those on the Israeli side of the security fence, that the Clinton administration anticipated would
be annexed to Israel as part of a land swap creating a Palestinian state. Nor does Netanyahu have either the legal
authority or the support of the public to ban Jewish housing inside the juridical boundaries of Jerusalem, on land that
might have been outside Israel's borders before 1967, but was formally annexed to Israel a quarter century ago by the
Jerusalem law of 1980.
The Obama administration would be smarter to play a more nuanced game and make the distinctions it is avoiding. Only a
minority of Israelis support construction of housing in outlying settlements beyond Israel's security fence, but
construction in the blocs and especially in Jewish communities in Jerusalem is supported by the vast majority of the
Israeli public and all the major political parties. Absolutist demands for a total freeze may win applause in the United States,
even from some in the U.S. Jewish community, but they go much too far to succeed in the real world.
If Obama's purpose in authorizing this confrontation was to provide an incentive to the Palestinians and the moderate
states in the Arab League to take the steps they need to take for peace, his policy is likely to fail on this measure as well.
Reinforcing the long-standing belief in the Arab world that the United States can "deliver" Israel, if it only has the will,
reduces Arab incentives to make concessions in direct negotiations with Israel, rather than increasing them. It is only
natural for Arab leaders to conclude, "Why negotiate with the difficult Israelis, when you can get your American friends to
do the work for you?" The American message should be exactly the reverse: "You have to negotiate with the Israelis. We
cannot do it for you."
Netanyahu knows he will need to compromise on settlements, but he can do this only if Obama compromises too. An
impasse on this issue certainly does not serve Israel's interests, but it will not advance the goals of the Obama
administration either. The U.S. President's advisers need to see that, on settlements, like so many issues, the perfect is the
enemy of the good enough.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Israel & the Arabs -- The Israeli-Arab Conflict
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Islamism & Jihadism -- Radical Islam & Islamic Terrorism
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Dr. Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as Foreign Policy Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and
was a defendant in the recently dismissed AIPAC case. He is now Director of the Washington Project at the Middle East
Forum. He earned his Ph.D. from Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Diplomacy.
The foregoing article by Dr. Rosen was originally published in Foreign Policy, July 1, 2009, and
can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to
define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam,
working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote
constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly
asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
(Article URL: http://www.meforum.org/article/2175/obama-hard-line-israeli-settlements)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
July 3, 2009
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XI, 2009
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity