History lesson needed

DVIR ABRAMOVICH

THE general consensus from the Netanyahu-Obama May meeting is that the American president gave the Israeli PM the cold shoulder. Indeed, this issue is turning into one hell of a kafuffle. Obama has demanded a complete construction freeze to settlements and has likened Israel’s pro-settlement activities as counter to America’s national security.

Netanyahu apparently told Obama that Israel cannot “freeze life” in existing settlements and also told the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee that “there are reasonable requests and unreasonable requests”. Why is Obama focusing on Israel, rather than on de-nuking North Korean and Iran? Or on a resurgent Taliban, a fragile Pakistan with nuclear weapons, a Turkey vulnerable to Islamism, a still broken Iraq or an intransigent Syria?

For many, such a confrontational approach indicates that Obama is attempting to bring down the Netanyahu government, knowing that for certain coalition partners, especially Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beitenu, such a move would be a deal breaker. Commentator Aaron David Miller believes the White House “may be less concerned with actually getting to negotiations … and more interested in setting new rules and rearranging the furniture”.

Another commentator said that “Israel is a banana republic whose democratically elected leadership should be changed by the US, if they are not compatible with the current US Administration”. Obama’s policy represents a blunt and profound departure. Hillary Clinton is now using language such as “colonisation of the West Bank”. The White House is supposedly weighing up sanctions to compel Israel to sing its tune.

That could include an end to US support of Israel in the UN, re-evaluating loan guarantees and less cooperation with Israel on security matters. As Eitan Haber put it: “We’re in trouble.” Obama reminds me of Bill Clinton. Both men were in their mid-40s when they became president. Clinton, as does Obama, thought he could solve the intractable conflict by imposing his own agenda on the region, instead of recognising the dispute must be worked out by the two sides through reciprocal steps. Perhaps Obama thinks he can win the Nobel Peace Prize that eluded Clinton.

Obama, who in his speech at Cairo University stressed his vision of reconciliation between the West and Islam, wants to show the Arab world that he can secure a new peace deal by pressuring Israel to come to the party. It’s not coincidental that Obama’s first trip to the Mid-East is to Cairo, and not Jerusalem. There is zero evidence to suggest that a settlement freeze would lead to peace with the Palestinians and compel Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Arab states to accept a Jewish state.

The Palestinians are divided, with no agreed leadership to represent them. Mahmoud Abbas is sitting idly by, after turning down Ehud Olmert’s offer of 97 per cent of the West Bank, thinking that he if waits long enough Israel will concede more territory. And Abbas, from time to time, calls for an armed struggle against Israel. Netanyahu is between a rock and a hard place. He must contend with a volcanic reaction if he goes against the settlers, or defies Obama.

Of course, he can point to the understanding reached with the previous Bush administration — which permitted Israel to build in East Jerusalem, and within the physical boundaries of existing West Bank settlements, as part of natural growth. He could ask Obama why Israel should give up something tangible for nothing of value. Freebies are good for TV game shows, but not when it concerns the future survival of a state.

Bibi could also mention the thanks Israel got for its disengagement from Gaza, the wisdom of following US policy (Condoleezza Rice insisted on democratic elections in Gaza and left Israel with a Hamas government and rocket bombardment), the logical expectation that discussion on settlements be part of broad negotiations on a spectrum of issues. He could also appeal to the US congress, which houses more seasoned and sober politicians.

Bibi could also ask Obama what will happen if in two years his initiative fails and Israel is, once again, left to deal with the fallout. What Obama needs is a history lesson and little more scepticism. Otherwise, his peace plan will be relegated to the graveyard of other presidents’ road maps to peace.

Dr Dvir Abramovich, the Jan Randa senior lecturer in Hebrew and Jewish studies, is director of the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Jewish History and Culture.