Obama needs Netanyahu in order to be able to make progress towards a peace agreement in the Middle East to restore the United States’ image in the moderate Arab countries. Netanyahu needs Washington’s support in order to stand up to the threat of a nuclear Iran.

(Jerusalem) WHILE IT IS ASSUMED THAT BENJAMIN NETANYAHU and Barack Obama must have actually spoken during the time that they met in Washington, what is certain is that the issues, agreements and disagreements that came up in the conversation have been zealously guarded, and not revealed to the public.

We know that after the long meeting – which went over the scheduled time – was over, both leaders addressed the press with different messages. While Obama spoke to the moderate Arab countries and the international community, Benjamin Netanyahu decided to send a reassuring message to his extreme right coalition.

CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS

The differences between the two leaders are based on the ideological sectors that they represent. Barack Obama, the “Yes We Can” democratic theorist, does not appear to be interested in spending four years in the White House without bringing about change and advances in different national and global areas, with one of them being the Middle East and the conflicts in the region. As for the Israeli prime minister, who is known for his conservatism, his principal interest at this point in time appears to be keeping the current situation just as it is, without making any compromising agreements that could cause problems for him in the coalition; and he is even less interested in going down in history as the first Israeli prime minister to make the creation of a sorely needed Palestinian state possible.

“In the solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Obama sees an excellent weapon to help bring the Arab world closer to the West, and also put greater pressure on the Iranian regime”

Politics is a system of interests and necessities. Obama needs Netanyahu in order to be able to make progress towards a peace agreement in the Middle East to restore the United States’ seriously deteriorated image in the moderate Arab countries in the region. In turn, Netanyahu needs Washington’s support in order to stand up to the threat of a nuclear Iran. It is within this system where two very different leaders must meet and take care of each other.

OBAMA’S POSITION

In the solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Obama sees an excellent weapon to help bring the Arab world closer to the West, and also put greater pressure on the Iranian regime, which supports the groups Hamas and Hezbolah.

The American president’s requests are very clear: completely freeze the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and accept a peace process similar to or based on the “Roadmap”.

“The current position of refusing to accept a Palestinian state is not real in the current international community, and if the first meeting with Obama was indeed friendly, and apparently relaxed, it will not take long for Washington to put on the pressure”

The Obama administration’s innovation lies in the implementation of a plan for regional peace based on the Saudi initiative, an “Arab Roadmap”. This was recently termed a “23-State” solution by the British Foreign Minister David Miliband. It will be fundamentally dependent upon what the Arab countries can contribute, as well as their political situations.

During the first years of Oslo, Israel was tempted by the offer to hold regional economic conferences in Casablanca and water desalination projects in Amman. Today, in the age of terrorist suicide attacks, Qassam rockets, Hamas in Gaza, the threat of Hezbollah from Lebanon, and in view of a future nuclear Iran, a regional initiative would involve support to Israel from the Arab states in order to face up to each of these problems: weakening Hamas and Hezbollah, supporting and strengthening the Palestinian Autonomy and granting the Palestinian people the necessary security in order to advance towards a true peace agreement.

BIBI’S POSITION

Netanyahu’s priority, in contrast, is to speed up the process of containing the Iranian nuclear project. While it is true that both leaders agree that Iran poses a latent threat, the differences are centered around the amount of time that should be spent waiting and the amount of aggression that should be used to deal with the problem.

“Although judging from this first meeting both leaders appear to be on the same page, it is worth bearing in mind that the results could have been much better if the Israeli prime minister had committed himself to peace instead of the extreme Israeli right that backs him”

The Israeli prime minister is facing the same threat that his ancestors faced: that of the fall of his government. During the past few decades, the current Israeli political system has demonstrated that it is highly unstable, which, for more than twenty years, has kept every prime minister from managing to complete his term in office. The coalition of the right, which Netanyahu himself formed, is now his principal threat; however, it won’t take long for the moment to come in which he will have to make crucial decisions and define a real political line.

The Middle East is not a region in which you can avoid taking sides, especially without the backing of an American president, which George Bush provided. The current position of refusing to accept a Palestinian state is not real in the current international community, and if the first meeting with Obama was indeed friendly, and apparently relaxed, it will not take long for Washington to put on the pressure.

THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?

The philosophical discussion between the two leaders can be reduced to the age-old debate: which came first: the chicken or the egg? Netanyahu’s answer was abstract and rather uncompromising: “two simultaneous and parallel processes”.

“The Israeli leader should have taken a step forward to gain the backing of the United States in order to launch a true peace process”

While for the moment the differences between the two countries exist only on a rhetorical level, Netanyahu’s refusal to accept a Palestinian state is profoundly irritating to Washington, given that it constitutes a reneging on prior agreements.

The roadmap accepted on May 25, 2003 stipulates: “to create a roadmap to a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on two States”.

In turn, Benjamin Netanyahu returned to Israel with a clearer response regarding the measures that the United States will take in view of the Iranian threat. This is a small but satisfactory step for the Israeli prime minister, who was able to avoid comprising his position thanks to the lack of commitment that he demonstrated to the local peace process, highly condemned by the members of his coalition.

“Not openly accepting the “two States for two peoples” solution is, in the medium term, a grave strategic threat to the existence of a Jewish and democratic Israel”

Although judging from this first meeting both leaders appear to be on the same page, it is worth bearing in mind that the results could have been much better if the Israeli prime minister had committed himself to peace instead of the extreme Israeli right that backs him.

In an international context in which the moderate Arab states fear Iran and openly criticize Hamas and Hezbolah, the Israeli leader should have taken a step forward to gain the backing of the United States in order to launch a true peace process to bring about a definitive solution to the conflict.

THE SETTLEMENTS, A STRATEGIC THREAT

Netanyahu’s cowardly, conservative policy – not openly accepting the “two States for two peoples” solution – is, in the medium term, a grave strategic threat to the existence of a Jewish and democratic Israel. The time has come for Israeli leaders to understand that the permanent construction of settlements in the West Bank, aside from being a thorn in the side of American-Israeli relations, is an existential problem for the Jewish state, a problem that damages its international image, its democratic characteristics and its ethical values.

“The time will come when both leaders will have to clarify their positions”

Oval Office meetings are not generally meant to determine policies to be followed, but rather to construct relationships between nations, leaders and allies. The time will come when both leaders will have to clarify their positions. Netanyahu will have to lay bare his true intentions regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Obama will have to make it clear what American policy will be in the case of a possible diplomatic failure with Iran.

These relationships between new leaders must be built upon a foundation of confidence and cooperation; let’s hope that the common past between the two countries is strong enough to bring two extremely different leaders together.