Marc Stanley, the Chairman of the Jewish National Democratic Council, wrote an article in August 2008 lauding President Obama’s (then the Democratic candidate) trip to Israel as a “reaffirm[ation] [of] his commitment to Israel’s peace and security.” However, since he has taken office, President Obama has yet to visit Israel. Far right-wingers point to his absence in the Holy Land as proof that Mr. Stanley, along with millions of other Israel supporters, were duped by the President. This accusation is mostly inaccurate, but the right does have a good point; Obama needs to show some face in Israel.
In the beginning of his first term, Obama’s political strategy made sense—appeal to the Middle Eastern countries and tone down the vocal support for Israel. He had a unique opportunity to mend some of the broken relationships with many of the Arab countries. Excessively showcasing the U.S.-Israel relationship would have been viewed as a continuation of the Bush administration’s hostilities. Obama’s tactic was not an ideological shift, just a political strategy. Congress was still writing checks to Israel, with the President’s support. His strategy ended up failing, however, as relations with the Middle East did not change.
After a year in office, Obama should have visited Israel, but for whatever reason he didn’t. Since then, things in the Middle East have changed drastically. Given the uncertainty surrounding the Arab Spring, from a U.S. policy perspective, it is reasonable for the President to employ his initial strategy of not visiting Israel for regional stability purposes. But, given Israel’s new security concerns and the country’s deteriorating relations with Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, and Turkey, Obama needs to rise above and give his closest ally some face time.
All the President needs to do is announce that an upcoming visit to Israel is an attempt to push peace talks along. One would think he wants to backup his controversial speech, in which he called for peace negotiations based on the 1967 borders. Whether the negotiations go well or not is difficult to predict, but until Obama sets foot on Israeli soil peace talks will not be serious. If he puts on a good face, speaks to the Israeli people with the charm that won him the 2008 election, while expressing fairness and sincerity about Israel’s security and prosperity, he will be surprised with the amount of respect the Israeli people give him. Whether or not you agree with his politics, Obama symbolizes change in America, and the Israeli public is hungry for a change of their own (see here). If handled properly his presence in Israel could be very stimulating to Israelis and provide a boost of confidence they desperately need.
The visit would also give the President a chance to meet Palestinian Authority officials in the region. He could gauge first-hand the Fatah-Hamas unity deal and test their readiness for statehood. The success of any future Palestinian state will certainly rely on American support. Images of PA officials meeting with Obama is sure to incite animosity between Fatah and Hamas, and between rival Hamas figures.
Deep down, many pro-Israel Americans know that Obama is not out to isolate or ostracize Israel or its policies. He is simply doing what he thinks can help change the region for the better, while trying to shape his legacy. While he has made some mistakes and a little bit of progress, Obama can still make a real impact on the peace process. But, first he must take a trip to Israel.
