Editorial, Washington Post, March 16, 2010.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S Middle East diplomacy failed in his first year in part
because he chose to engage in an unnecessary and unwinnable public
confrontation with Israel over Jewish settlements in the West Bank and
Jerusalem. Over the past six months Mr. Obama's envoys gingerly retreated
from that fight and worked to build better relations with the government of
Binyamin Netanyahu.
Last week the administration finally managed to strike a deal for the
launching of indirect Israeli-Palestinian talks. So it has been startling -- and a
little puzzling -- to see Mr. Obama deliberately plunge into another public brawl
with the Jewish state.
True, this U.S.-Israel crisis began with a provocation from Jerusalem: the
announcement by the Interior Ministry of plans for 1,600 more Jewish homes
beyond Israel's 1967 border. Vice President Biden, who was visiting when the
news broke, was embarrassed; he quickly responded with a statement of
condemnation. He then appeared to accept the public apology of Mr.
Netanyahu, who said he, too, had been surprised by the announcement.
The dispute's dramatic escalation since then seems to have come at the direct
impetus of Mr. Obama. Officials said he outlined points for Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton to make in a searing, 45-minute phone call to Mr.
Netanyahu on Friday. On Sunday senior Obama adviser David Axelrod heaped
on more vitriol, saying in a television appearance that the settlement
announcement had been an "affront" and an "insult" that had "undermined this
very fragile effort to bring peace to that region."
Mr. Obama and his advisers appear determined to prove that they will not be
pushed around by Israel. The public scoldings also send a message to
Palestinian and Arab leaders who have been demanding assurances that the
United States will use its leverage in the new peace negotiations. And the
administration hopes to extract immediate concessions from Mr. Netanyahu: It
has demanded that he reverse the Jerusalem settlement decision, release
Palestinian prisoners, agree to cover sensitive "final status" issues in the
indirect talks and investigate the errant settlement announcement.
Mr. Netanyahu already has conceded the last point and may give way on
others; he is facing harsh domestic criticism. But Mr. Obama risks repeating his
previous error. American chastising of Israel invariably prompts still harsher
rhetoric, and elevated demands, from Palestinian and other Arab leaders. Rather
than join peace talks, Palestinians will now wait to see what unilateral Israeli
steps Washington forces.
Mr. Netanyahu already has made a couple of concessions in the past
year, including declaring a partial moratorium on settlements. But on the
question of Jerusalem, he is likely to dig in his heels -- as would any other
Israeli government. If the White House insists on a reversal of the settlement
decision, or allows Palestinians to do so, it might land in the same corner from
which it just extricated itself.
A larger question concerns Mr. Obama's quickness to bludgeon the Israeli
government. He is not the first president to do so; in fact, he is not even the
first to be hard on Mr. Netanyahu.
But tough tactics don't always work: Last year Israelis rallied behind Mr.
Netanyahu, while Mr. Obama's poll ratings in Israel plunged to the single digits.
The president is perceived by many Israelis as making unprecedented demands
on their government while overlooking the intransigence of Palestinian and Arab
leaders.
If this episode reinforces that image, Mr. Obama will accomplish the
opposite of what he intends.
