A plan gone awry
Decisions by Netanyahu, to back Romney over Obama and to attack Gaza have led some Israelis to question his judgments.
The American-educated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long prided himself on being a better judge of American politics than his predecessors. He has also succeeded in establishing close ties with many prominent political figures, particularly the “neo-cons”, during his diplomatic assignments in Washington and New York. But two recent events have led some Israelis to question his judgments.
The first was his open disdain for President Barack Obama, which graduated into a not-too-subtle endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney. This led Aaron Miller, a veteran Middle East negotiator, to describe the Netanyahu-Obama relationship as “the most dysfunctional I have ever seen”. Nor did it endear Netanyahu to his admirers in the US or his supporters back home, for as pointed out by Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, “Bibi backed the wrong horse” and after his latest adventure, “there has been a reversal of balance between Bibi and Obama”.
Given his commando instincts, Netanyahu’s second error was to opt immediately after Obama’s victory for a pre-emptive strike, ostensibly to refurbish his hawkish credentials, to silence critics at home and ensure victory in the January elections and, thereafter, stymie any White House peace initiative. This could also put to test President Mohamed Morsi’s credentials as a “reliable” peace partner. Why else kill Al Jabari, the Hamas military leader, who was instrumental in agreeing to a truce, if not but as a move to serve Netanyahu’s domestic and foreign policy goals?
The past weeks have, however, proven the truth of the ancient adage that the best laid plans are subject to uncertainties. For one, Morsi demonstrated unexpected skill and resolve, defying popular sentiments to engage in forceful negotiations with Israel, becoming the main interlocutor between Hamas and Israel, while establishing himself as a credible partner with the US, thereby trashing reservations about him in US Congress and the media. In the process, Morsi earned the Obama Administration’s public appreciation, prompting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to observe that Egypt was “assuming responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone of regional stability and peace”. Netanyahu, too, expressed his “appreciation for the efforts of Egypt”. After all, Egypt’s enhanced role would serve to reduce Iran’s influence in the region. And while doing all this, the Egyptian president reinforced his ties with the Hamas, proving to be an effective friend, which led Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader, to declare: “May God keep him in the presidency”. (It is, however, another matter that soon thereafter, Morsi went for a power grab that has engulfed him in a serious domestic crisis).
Secretary Clinton is savouring what may well be the last round of applause she is likely to receive for her diplomatic skills. President Obama would also be enjoying the sight of his detractor shooting himself in the foot. He has, however, continued to strike the traditionally pro-Israel stance, steadfast in support for Israel’s right to “defend” itself, while not urging “restrain” in its bombing campaign against civilian targets. Incidentally, it was Obama who had approved funds for the Iron Dome missile defence system, which reportedly intercepted 90 per cent of the Hamas-launched missiles.
Does this mean that President Obama has buttressed his credentials with Israel and its supporters in the US to a degree that would enable him to think of the larger agenda for the region? Surely, he is wise enough to recognise that the region has gone through a historic transformation and Israel’s ephemeral victories will not bring peace to this long-tormented land, unless the issue of Palestinian independence is resolved. The fragile ceasefire is only a brief pause that needs to be seized to revive the dormant peace process. Admittedly, the Arab-Israeli dispute is not amenable to easy or pain-free resolution, but if history is any guide, if anyone can venture into these choppy waters, it is only an American president, in his second term.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 28th, 2012.
The first was his open disdain for President Barack Obama, which graduated into a not-too-subtle endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney. This led Aaron Miller, a veteran Middle East negotiator, to describe the Netanyahu-Obama relationship as “the most dysfunctional I have ever seen”. Nor did it endear Netanyahu to his admirers in the US or his supporters back home, for as pointed out by Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, “Bibi backed the wrong horse” and after his latest adventure, “there has been a reversal of balance between Bibi and Obama”.
Given his commando instincts, Netanyahu’s second error was to opt immediately after Obama’s victory for a pre-emptive strike, ostensibly to refurbish his hawkish credentials, to silence critics at home and ensure victory in the January elections and, thereafter, stymie any White House peace initiative. This could also put to test President Mohamed Morsi’s credentials as a “reliable” peace partner. Why else kill Al Jabari, the Hamas military leader, who was instrumental in agreeing to a truce, if not but as a move to serve Netanyahu’s domestic and foreign policy goals?
The past weeks have, however, proven the truth of the ancient adage that the best laid plans are subject to uncertainties. For one, Morsi demonstrated unexpected skill and resolve, defying popular sentiments to engage in forceful negotiations with Israel, becoming the main interlocutor between Hamas and Israel, while establishing himself as a credible partner with the US, thereby trashing reservations about him in US Congress and the media. In the process, Morsi earned the Obama Administration’s public appreciation, prompting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to observe that Egypt was “assuming responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone of regional stability and peace”. Netanyahu, too, expressed his “appreciation for the efforts of Egypt”. After all, Egypt’s enhanced role would serve to reduce Iran’s influence in the region. And while doing all this, the Egyptian president reinforced his ties with the Hamas, proving to be an effective friend, which led Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader, to declare: “May God keep him in the presidency”. (It is, however, another matter that soon thereafter, Morsi went for a power grab that has engulfed him in a serious domestic crisis).
Secretary Clinton is savouring what may well be the last round of applause she is likely to receive for her diplomatic skills. President Obama would also be enjoying the sight of his detractor shooting himself in the foot. He has, however, continued to strike the traditionally pro-Israel stance, steadfast in support for Israel’s right to “defend” itself, while not urging “restrain” in its bombing campaign against civilian targets. Incidentally, it was Obama who had approved funds for the Iron Dome missile defence system, which reportedly intercepted 90 per cent of the Hamas-launched missiles.
Does this mean that President Obama has buttressed his credentials with Israel and its supporters in the US to a degree that would enable him to think of the larger agenda for the region? Surely, he is wise enough to recognise that the region has gone through a historic transformation and Israel’s ephemeral victories will not bring peace to this long-tormented land, unless the issue of Palestinian independence is resolved. The fragile ceasefire is only a brief pause that needs to be seized to revive the dormant peace process. Admittedly, the Arab-Israeli dispute is not amenable to easy or pain-free resolution, but if history is any guide, if anyone can venture into these choppy waters, it is only an American president, in his second term.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 28th, 2012.