As President Barack Obama extends an open hand to Iran and Hamas in an effort to change the current Middle Eastern dynamic, Binyamin Netanyahu, Likud Chairman and potentially the next Israeli Prime Minister, may pose a hurdle towards some American strategies regarding the peace process and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction through an armed Iran.
During his tenure as Prime Minister in the late 90s, Netanyahu promoted the development of settlements in order to surround Jerusalem and effectively prevent the division of the city upon the inauguration of a two-state solution. Similarly, throughout the recent campaign, Netanyahu advocated permitting “natural growth” of existing settlements, essentially permitting the expansion of non-Palestinians throughout the West Bank.
Netanyahu also historically used ardent rhetoric to oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Even after being ousted from the government, Netanyahu in 2002 declared his eternal opposition to a two-state solution. However, this campaign cycle he slightly moderated his views by refusing to dismiss the notion of a Palestinian state even though he has not explicitly advocated its creation.
Moreover, Netanyahu’s desire for negotiations with the Palestinians remained unenthusiastic. President Bill Clinton’s strong-armed Netanyahu in 1998 to pursue the Wye River agreement. However, after lackluster efforts from all three negotiators (Clinton, Netanyahu, and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat), Netanyahu wasted no time in suspending the accords mere months after their approval in order to mandate the cessation of Palestinian violence, reinitiated by Hamas after the Wye River conference, before halting settlement expansion and resuming the peace process.
These Netanyahu stances, pursuing a secure Israel before embarking on any peace initiatives conflict with a crucial component of U.S. efforts in obtaining an -Palestine peace process. Obama appointed special envoy George Mitchell, essentially the author of the Road Map, to establish a viable peace process in the region. However, the plan nearly immediately calls for a freeze on settlement expansion, including natural growth, and results in the eventual creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Potential conflict between Netanyahu and the Obama Administration extends beyond dialogue with the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s top priority rests on preventing a nuclear Iran, potentially through the use of force. This stance only accentuates his posture of placing the security of Israel at the forefront of his agenda.
Moreover, even a more centrist Israeli government with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak failed to obtain the green light from the clearly anti-Iranian Bush administration. In fact, late last year, the White House refused the sale of mid-air refueling jets to Israel, technology required for an aerial strike on Iran from Israel. Under those optimal conditions, the United States rebuffed a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran; however, now with Israeli leadership seeking an immediate solution and the United States urging patience, the two competing strategies may embed a chasm into relations between the two nations.
While Netanyahu and Israeli politicians strive to prevent a nuclear Iran at all costs, Obama intends to initiate face-to-face negotiations in the coming months. Nevertheless,
Obama, repeatedly states Israel’s right to defend itself and its borders, a commonality between the two statesmen’s understanding of the security situation. Obama reaffirms the need for a secure Israel from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and would not hesitate to enlist U.S. troops in defense of America’s closest regional, if not global, ally. The Obama proclamation, though, does not condone all military action proposed by Israel and does not necessarily extend to permitting preventative strikes.
However, Netanyahu is a skilled politician, able to resurrect his tattered image from the mid-90s into his current persona of being the only viable protector of Israel. After studying in the United States and working with American politicians in Congress and the executive branch, he understands American politics and knows that U.S. support for Israel remains necessary for the prosperity of the state. Facing upcoming U.S. diplomatic strides in the region, Netanyahu asserted his independence through a hard-line declaration that he refuses to succumb to foreign pressures.
Regardless of his rhetoric, Netanyahu understands that alienating the United States would only weaken his ability to defend his position to the Israeli public or upon facing a vote-of-no-confidence. Instead of relegating his second attempt at governance to the same fate of his first try, Netanyahu should moderate his views and surprise the world by seeking a decisive and pragmatic approach to the multiple crises facing Israel. Even though Netanyahu remains accountable to Israelis and not to the American administration, he should attempt to support certain U.S. initiatives that may ultimately serve the interests of his constituents.
