Netanyahu and Obama: Showdown at the O.K. Corral?
The first meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama took place today. The outcome is as yet unknown. Some papers and pundits have approached the meeting with a build up reminiscent of the one that preceded the Ali-Frazier fight.
The first meeting between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama took place today. The outcome is as yet unknown. Some papers and pundits have approached the meeting with a build up reminiscent of the one that preceded the Ali-Frazier fight.
Two heads of state both representing different ends of the political spectrum. Both are very verbal and both have laid out clear and possibly intractable positions on what they believe should be the process to achieve a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli problem and both have different visions of what the conclusion of the process should be. To complicate matters more, both of these men came to office to office as a result of the overwhelming rejection of their predecessors.
This not exactly a very promising beginning, yet both Netanyahu and Obama probably would prefer, each for their own political reasons, to at least present a semblance of cordiality. On top of which the personal chemistry between the two has not yet been tested.
The irony is that Netanyahu would have been a better counterpart for Bush and Obama would have done better (at least philosophically) with Olmert.
Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu follows an intensive campaign on the part of the President to reach out to the Muslim world. It is a campaign that many suspect will result in the shifting of alliances and in the ultimate sell out of Israel. Those feelings may be unwarranted but there are many indicators that suggest a very clear Obama plan.
President Obama has decided that there must be a two-state solution. Netanyahu has rejected that concept.
The key indicator of where Obama is going comes from statements made by King Abdullah of Jordan to the Times of London. In his statement, the king says that the United States, meaning Obama, is suggesting a peace plan that is a “57 State Solution,” meaning that the President is advocating a comprehensive peace plan with the entire Muslim world. To the uninitiated, it appears to be a noble plan but if pursued would have disastrous consequences for both Israel and the United States.
This is where Obama’s lack of experience in foreign policy shows. All this has been tried before and abandoned. The argument is that Israel must engage in multilateral negotiations to achieve a comprehensive peace. This is what we had before bilateral negotiations.
The reason multilateral negotiations cannot work is because such negotiations are always held hostage to the lowest common denominator. In other words, if Israel and Fatah come to an agreement it cannot be consummated without Hamas agreeing to it. And Hamas would still need Syria’s blessing.
Such a stacked deck would clearly mean a bad deal for Israel, but why is it a bad deal for the United States? Abandoning for the moment the traditional argument of linkage between U.S. and Israel’s national security interests, Iran, the lowest common denominator in this case, could and would control the negotiations.
As the lowest common denominator, Iran could sabotage any potential agreement (in the unlikely event that there would be one). This is an outcome the United States, never mind Israel, can ill afford.
Abdullah, who has already met with Obama and spoken with him on several other occasions, probably has as accurate a reading of Obama’s vision and plan as anyone in the Middle East. In fact, it is highly doubtful that Abdullah leaked the information about the plan without Obama’s approval.
In all likelihood, the release of this information was coordinated with the Obama administration to occur before the meeting with Netanyahu. If that is true, then in the words of Betty Davis, “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.”