How To Get A Relationship Back On Track
Now that the Israeli elections are in the rearview mirror — although coalition negotiations are still ongoing — it is time to assess the damage to the US-Israel relationship and figure out how to avoid clashes going forward like those that have marred the past few years.
There is no doubt that the relationship is at a low point, perhaps even historically low, and anyone who claims otherwise is likely pushing some sort of agenda.
But it is also the case that it will certainly recover and that we are not seeing the beginning of the end, but are rather going through the sort of blip that happened under Ford in 1975, Reagan in 1981, Bush in 1990, etc.
The relationship between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu is the worst between a president and a prime minister, and there is also wide distrust and dislike of ministers such as Bogie Ya'alon and Naftali Bennett in the White House — with a corresponding disdain for people like John Kerry and Susan Rice in the prime minister's office. Ultimately, Obama and Netanyahu are going to move on from the scene, and the robust institutional relationship that still exists at all other levels will be paramount.
That said, this fighting at the top levels is ugly and counterproductive, and at some point threatens to become a lasting acrimonious trend rather than a temporary occurrence. Each side needs to think about what can and should be done to prevent future misunderstandings big and small.
Israel needs to prove it's committed to peace and liberal democracy
Starting with the Israeli side, this government and all future governments need to understand that support from the US is predicated on a number of things, but first and foremost on the idea of shared democratic values.
I have written about this at length in academic form and the post-9/11 picture is a bit more complicated, but the executive summary is that it is easy to draw a direct line from public preferences to foreign policy formation in this particular case. Americans don't care whether or not Israel is a strategic asset or liability but do care whether or not Israel is a liberal democracy.
Furthermore, the erosion of support for Israel on the left and among younger voters is even more tightly tied to this (although whether Israel could do anything that would be able to satisfy some of this segment is a separate question). Netanyahu's lackluster moves toward creating a Palestinian state and his ugly election day display matter hugely in this regard, and all of the "yes, but" arguments that seek to mitigate these things don't matter, even if they are true.
Maybe a Palestinian negotiating partner that was more serious and responsive to Israeli concessions or an altered security environment would prompt Netanyahu to leave the West Bank, and maybe Netanyahu's rejection of a Palestinian state on his watch really was meant to be qualified and his warning that Arabs are coming to the polls in droves wasn't about Arabs specifically but just shorthand for leftwing voters.
Even if you fervently believe these things — and, for what it's worth, I am hugely skeptical — it doesn't matter when it comes to the relationship with the US, because they both chip away at the vision in the American mind of Israel as a like-minded country that we can easily understand and with which we can sympathize.
What Israeli governments need to understand is that 99% of people outside of Israel are not following the daily back and forth of Israeli politics and policy, and so the rapidly spreading perception of Israel as an increasingly illiberal country seeking to shout down minorities and keep the Palestinians in a state of perpetual occupied statelessness doesn't have to be true in order to be damaging.
Once Israel is seen as abandoning the two state solution and the peace process, the game is over and Israel becomes like any other country when it comes to US foreign policy. The only priority the Israeli government should have going forward when it comes to the US is preserving the possibility of an eventual two state solution, even if such an outcome is currently impossible.
The Israel Policy Forum released a statement of principles last week that is dead-on in this regard. It explicitly recognizes that a negotiated two state solution is not imminent for a variety of reasons, but that preserving the possibility of two states happening at some point down the road is critical.
It recognizes the security bind that Israel is in and thus does not demand that Israel simply pull out of the West Bank tomorrow, and states without qualification that Palestinian moves to encourage the BDS movement or to use the ICC are counterproductive.
At the same time, the statement is clear that advancing the goal of two states for two people is the key to US-Israel relations, among other things, and that this means rethinking settlement policy and embracing ways out of the bind such as the Arab Peace Initiative.
This is on target because it displays an understanding of the fact that just because Israel may not be able to create a Palestinian state at this point in time due to circumstances both of its own doing and beyond its control does not obviate the necessity to keep this goal alive, if for no other reason than to preserve the crucial relationship with the US.
For a variety of historical reasons, no matter what it does Israel is never going to be a normal country accepted by everyone.
Anti-Semitism is a very real phenomenon and it underpins much (although not all) of anti-Zionism, and the strain of anti-imperial ideology that exists in many places is never going to be comfortable with Israel whether it pulls out of the West Bank or not. Israel does not and never will live a completely normal life.
But this fact makes it even more important for Israel to have completely clean hands and to not give anyone any excuse to condemn the country, since double standards when it comes to Israel are a permanent fact of life. The US is a country that actually does sympathize with Israel for many reasons, whether it be because of a frontier mentality or Christian Zionism or respect for democracy or solidarity with a Westernized state in the Middle East.
Even the US, however, is not going to give Israel a blank check, and needs to see that Israel is doing what it can within reason to live up to its ideals.
Obama and Netanyahu will continue to loathe each other, and better Israeli behavior on settlements would have had absolutely zero bearing on mitigating West Wing retaliation in the aftermath of the Netanyahu speech to Congress. But looking at a longer time horizon and anticipating what happens once the principals change, Israel needs to do a better job always acting like a country that values its democracy first and foremost, and that is ready to live next to a Palestinian state when the Palestinians are ready to live next to Israel.
When you rule out that possibility entirely, what the Palestinians are or are not doing simply doesn't matter when it comes to better relations with the US.
The US needs to be smarter about applying pressure
On the US side, just as Israel needs to understand what is important to the US, the US needs to better understand what is important to Israel.
As a political scientist, one of the things that I think the Obama administration has gotten right is an understanding that countries have their own internal politics and that this cannot be simply brushed away as an inconvenient fact to be ignored.
Public opinion matters, in authoritarian states as well as in democracies (in fact, it may be even more important in authoritarian states where the only outlet for dissatisfaction is violence in the streets), and even a government in a country like Iran with a Supreme Leader ironically has to take politics into account when taking action like selling a nuclear deal.
Yet, when it comes to Israel, the Obama White House seems to forget this lesson and grants Netanyahu zero leeway. If the US wants the Israeli government to stop acting so hostile, it needs to get a better sense of when to push and when to lay off, since not all perceived Israeli misdeeds are created equal.
To take an important example, the Obama administration's views on the moral and practical problems with settlements are strident, but in expressing this, it rarely takes into account the fact that Israelis do not view all settlement activity as equal, and so putting all settlements into the same boat makes Israelis feel as if the US does not understand Israeli realities.
For instance, 90% of Israelis, if not more, do not view building in Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem as settlement activity, and are deeply resentful of efforts to prevent building in their own capital.
Every time Marie Harf or Jen Psaki says something negative about Israeli construction in neighborhoods like Gilo or Har Homa, Netanyahu seizes the opportunity to slam the US government, and not only is he not wrong to do so in the minds of the vast majority of Israelis, it wins him points in their eyes.
Within the West Bank as well, many Israelis make distinctions between building in settlement blocs that will be part of Israel in any eventual deal and building in areas outside of the blocs, but the US publicly does not recognize any distinction between an apartment in French Hill or Efrat and one in Kiryat Arba. This is also a problem.
Just as Israel needs to recognize US realities, the US needs to do the same with Israeli realities, and one of these realities is that not all building outside the Green Line is equal by a long shot.
When the administration treats all building as the same, it makes the Israeli government throw its hands in the air in frustration and assume that since it will get criticism no matter what it does, it may as well do whatever it likes. If this administration or any future one wants to get the Israeli government to crack down on the problematic settlements and to stop expanding blocs like Ma'ale Adumim or Ariel that legitimately cut into the West Bank so as to threaten its territorial continuity, then it has to be very clear with the Israeli government that it understands that Gilo and similar neighborhoods are always going to be a part of Israel.
Without acknowledging where Israeli politics are on this issue, the US will never have the trust of either the Israeli government or the Israeli public when it comes to territorial concessions. Even if the US does not publicly acknowledge Israel's right to build in Ramot or Alon Shvut, it needs to privately concede the point and pick its public battles more carefully if it wants an Israeli prime minister to ever be able to sell a deal with the Palestinians.
Relatedly, Netanyahu has obviously born the brunt of the anger coming from the White House and has been raked over the goals numerous times, and I think that in many instances it is deserved. But to give the man credit where it it due, he is capable of instituting a policy of doing no harm. He has not expanded settlements at a faster pace than his predecessors, and he has initiated new ones on a much reduced scale than his predecessors.
He also instituted a building freeze outside of Jerusalem for nine months when asked, and has very quietly instituted a freeze on new settlement projects even in Jerusalem this year. The point is not that Netanyahu is a peacenik, but that even he is capable of doing things that will make the US happy, and that giving the Israeli government a little bit of breathing space may do wonders for American priorities.
For both sides, it is imperative in the future to keep disputes behind closed doors rather than air them in public.
This applies to the US taking Netanyahu to task for a wide variety of real and perceived misdeeds, and it applies even more heavily to Israel doing things like trying to sabotage an Iran deal by embarrassing the White House in very public ways.
Aside from the fact that it poisons the relationship, it ends up being massively counterproductive for everyone involved.
Is there really anyone left who thinks that Netanyahu's speech to Congress moved the needle in the direction he wanted rather than doing the opposite by forcing Democrats to publicly side with the president even if their inclination was to do otherwise? And does anyone really believe that publicly threatening to withhold American vetoes in the United Nations Security Council is going to have a salutary effect on Israel's willingness to negotiate with the Palestinians?
On issues like settlements, it is in fact vital that the US try to accomplish what it wants in private, since if Netanyahu or any rightwing prime minister is going to give on territorial issues, they will not be able to loudly broadcast it and will need to maintain plausible deniability. The public sniping back and forth is bad for both sides and needs to stop, no matter how cathartic it may be for two parties that could use some couples therapy.
Despite the policy disputes, American and Israeli long-term interests still align in many ways. Even on Iran, which is of course the most high profile and deepest disagreement that has caused the most acrimony, the issue may now be working to Israel's benefit. The White House's apparent desire to strike a deal at nearly any cost likely means that it will not want to rock the boat in any way with Congress, which makes Israel's position at the UN a lot safer.
Both sides have to learn from past mistakes, such as the US not creating unreasonable expectations for Israel that can't be met, like a total settlement freeze, and Israel not trying to win fights with an administration when it has no leverage and little influence.
The personalities at the top will not be there forever, but if the US continues to use Israel as a wedge issue to score points, or if Israel keeps on behaving as if it is an equal partner — such as when it makes very public demands from US nuclear negotiators that are completely unrelated to the nuclear deal — when it is in fact very much a junior partner, then US-Israel ties really will suffer a blow that is not so easily recoverable.
Both sides need to step back, realize what is important to the other, what is doable within the confines of the political and security environment, and recalibrate things.
How To Get A Relationship Back On Track
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-bring-the-us-israeli-relationship-back-on-track-2015-4?r=US&IR=T&op=1
Posted by: rawlsparunt.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How To Get A Relationship Back On Track"
Post a Comment