Obama And The Real Tick In Israeli Ears

Back in Israel’s early days, many Israelis happily chanted a marching song whose ideology still undergirds Israel’s persistent expansion of settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. Indeed, that song’s lyrics expressly reject the notion of any Palestinian right to the West Bank. Those poignant lyrics proclaim: “There are two banks to the Jordan. This side is ours and so is the other side...all of it!” In the parlance of Israel’s current government (Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman) those lyrics translate into the actionable belief that Samaria and Judea (the entire West Bank) belong to Israel, not only by conquest, but by a Biblical grant deeded from the Divine.

That attitude still retains some limited, but quite vocal, currency in Israel. More importantly, that ideology lies at the heart of Israel’s continued expansion of settlements into further reaches of the West Bank. But geopolitical clarity reveals that expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank is not a matter of Israel’s national security. Rather, it is a matter that bespeaks continuing Israeli concerns related to its demographics, culture, history, religion and Israel’s national identity.

That said, much in Israel relates in some fashion to all of these concerns. As such, settlement in the West Bank is hardly an intractable matter. Neither is it a concern that rises to the level of issues like the status of Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugee problem or the persistent Arab/Palestinian demand that Israel return to pre-1967 borders. In short, expansion of West Bank settlements is, at best, a secondary (and perhaps a tertiary) issue in the grand scheme of issues confronting Israel. That appears to be why President Obama wittingly chose to publicly focus upon opposing further West Bank settlement expansion.

By seemingly laying down the gauntlet in opposition to further expanding West Bank settlements, Obama was able to make nice and look good to the Moslem world while –at the same time- not doing anything terribly substantive that would woefully offend a majority of Israelis (or most American Jews) or in any way endanger Israel’s security. Pointedly, Mr. Obama certainly knows that. Most Israelis understand that. The Saudis presumably recognize that and the Palestinians can hardly argue with that. In short, Mr. Obama has displayed unusual diplomatic perspicacity. He has thrown a fig leaf of apparent even-handedness to the Arabs and Moslem world while leaving Israel’s loins still fully covered. That appears to be a stroke of unusually deft diplomacy.

Assuredly, the issue of West Bank settlements will not cause an irreparable rift in U.S.-Israeli relations. On the contrary, by choosing to focus on further expanding West Bank settlements, Mr. Obama has simply publicly restated long-standing U.S. policy. In the process, he has studiously ascended the podium as a deliberate statesman with an ardent interest in moving the peace process along by repaving the road map to Mideast peace.

Mr. Obama’s thrust is crystal clear. He has not sought to establish new rules, he has not altered existing guidelines, has not proposed a new vision, he has not revealed a previously unknown shortcut and he has not presumed to divert to a new roadmap nor has he chosen a new route. Indeed, Mr. Obama is merely paving an old road while tangentially splashing some excess diplomatic tar on Mr. Netanyahu. The tar won't stick on Netanyahu, but it pleased the Palestinians. That was another clever move by Mr. Obama. It was obvious evidence to the Palestinians/Arabs/Moslems that the new American administration will not have its tail wantonly wagged by the new Israeli Prime Minister. This, too, fosters a positive perception of the United States in the Islamic world while not adversely affecting Israel. As for Mr. Netanyahu, he has been around the diplomatic block; he can walk on tar!

On the other hand, it is quite illuminating and unusually instructive that Mr. Obama made absolutely no reference whatsoever to dismantling or removing existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That would have been a momentous policy change that could have drawn a line in the diplomatic sand between Israel and the United States. But, Mr. Obama clearly and wisely opted not to pursue that confrontational route. Indeed, by focusing on not further expanding West Bank settlements, Mr. Obama chose an approach which encourages engagement and dialogue on what (in the grand scheme of things) should be substantially less than a critical issue for Israel. Obama's approach has left conspicuous wiggle room for Israel when the West Bank issue ultimately hits the roadmap's negotiating table.

The bottom line is that -amidst all the honeyed words and high sounding rhetoric- nothing substantive has changed except for the widespread and artfully created impression to the Moslem world of the new American President's apparent even-handedness. And that is surely a positive. After all, perception is a key ingredient for diplomatic progress, especially in the Arab/Moslem mindset.

That said, relations between the U.S. and Israel are not static; they are dynamic. There was a time when Israel could not exist absent U.S. aid. That situation is all but ancient history. In a troubled Mideast where Iran is threatening to acquire a nuclear arsenal, Israel remains a democratic bastion of stability. Perhaps of equal or even greater importance, Israel is an acknowledged (but not admitted) nuclear empowered geopolitical David with a gritty resolve to survive in a sea of unremitting Arab and Moslem hostility.

It is no relevation that the political pot in the Mideast is almost always boiling. Regrettably, that pot continues to seethe with a bellicose Iran which repeatedly threatens to rain nuclear dust on Israel. Even in the tumult of Iran's post-election turbulence, Tehran's street protestors found it expedient to chant "death to Israel." Yet, Israel has -thus far-exhibited remarkable rationality, pragmatism and (nuclear) forbearance viv-a-vis Iran.

However, given Israel's pervasive and omnipresent dedication to the doctrine of Never Again (not another Holocaust), Iran's continuing threats to expunge the Jewish state from the map is sorely testing Israeli tolerance for such virulent bellicosity. It should also be remembered that Netanyahu has unequivocally stated his position that "Ahmadinejad is a modern Hitler...The mistakes that were made prior to the Second World War must not be repeated...Against lunatics, deterrence must be absolute, total."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection (and, most notably, his unequivocal support by and from Iran's Supreme Leader) now compels Israel to further refine its objectives, to recalibrate its capacities and to reassess its options. The United States will certainly have input (be it direct and/or covert) into this process. Nonetheless, there is ample basis to argue that the America can also no longer preemptorily wag Israel's tail.

One matter is crystal clear, the more Iran perfects its long-range missile delivery systems and the more uranium that Iran enriches, the more will Israeli teeth be set on edge. And that is a prescription for potential Israeli reactions which make the tensions surrounding further expansion of West Bank settlements pale in comparison. Mr. Obama certainly knows that three of four Israelis believe that the United States will not be able to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. As a result, one of every two Israelis supports a preemptive strike on Iran.

Indeed, one wonders just how patient the United States and Mr. Obama will be when Kim Jong Il announces that his nation has perfected a long-range ICBM capable of delivering a North Korean nuclear device on Los Angeles, San Francisco or even Chicago? In that context, Mr. Obama also knows that the expansion of some obscure West Bank settlements is virtually inconsequential in comparison to Mr. Netanyahu's duty to protect Tel Aviv from some potentially incoming Iranian missile.

Premises considered, it is important to maintain a broad geopolitical perspective. More specifically, tunnel vision (retinitis pigmentosa) is a debilitating and disabling affliction, be it physical, diplomatic or geopolitical. In that light, the hubbub surrounding expanding Israeli settlements on the West Bank is little more than a proverbial tempest in a diplomatic tea pot. The issue of further West Bank expansion is thus best viewed as a case of geopolitical acne in comparison to the cancerous growth of uranium enriching centrifuges inside Iran. Mr. Obama has the geopolitical vision to see that.

Now that Mr. Netanyahu has provisionally accepted the "two-state" solution to the Palestinian problem, the most problematic and possibly most contentious issue confronting both United States and Israel is how and when to deal with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu certainly understand that. And on that truly critical concern, the nuclear clock is ticking….But notwithstanding Mr. Obama's prodigious ears, he certainly also knows that each and every tick is much louder and more ominous in Israeli ears!