New governments in the United States and Israel are reaching the end of their "running in" periods. The Obama administration has had more time to get its feet on the ground than the Netanyahu government. Its early days were busy with the economic crisis. That is not over, but the mammoth is looking elsewhere for problems to solve. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran are each somewhere near the top of the overseas agenda, and that old bugaboo of Israel/Palestine is not far behind. Indeed, depending on some of the comments, that is the key to solving much of the rest.
When noise comes from the mammoth, it is always difficult to know what it means. Are individuals in high places, or those who aspire to notice and influence, speaking on their own? Are they sending up trial balloons for someone else who also may be high, or at least aspire to be important? Does the president know what is being said? Is the person speaking for the president, or just seeing how something will be received? If the source is the Defense or State Department, does it represent anything more than the thinking of ranking, or not-so-ranking bureaucrats? When noise comes from a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, it is even more difficult to weigh the import. Is it an effort to curry favor with a foreign country or a lobbyist who claims to be speaking for a foreign country? Is there any chance that the comment has wide support in Congress or the Administration?
Perhaps there is a conspiracy at work. That is, a bad cop good cop scenario, where someone down in the piles expresses what may be viewed as tough language, in order to pave the way for the president to re-wrap the message in something more palatable.
From out of the mammoth in recent days we have heard that Israel must be more forthcoming with respect to the Palestinians in order to allow the United States to reach accords with Iran about the end of its nuclear program, and with Syria about the end of its bad behavior. Detailed comments have mentioned the freezing of settlements, the withdrawal of small settlements considered to be even more illegal than the large settlements, the need for Israel to commit itself to the development of the Palestinian state, Israel's acceptance of a commitment concerning its nuclear weapons, and an arrangement where the United States, the European Union, and moderate Arab countries (but not Israel) define the "end game" of the Palestinian issue.
The Obama administration might have been sending a message to Prime Minister Netanyahu when it invited Shimon Peres to the White House before him. Netanyahu had produced concern with his remarks that it is not appropriate to continue pursuing the idea of a Palestinian state. Important Americans and European responded with a collective oy gevalt.
Must Israel capitulate?
Before answering that question, it is appropriate to ask, To what?
Although numerous ranking Americans have expressed themselves in ways Israelis might perceive to be threatening, it is not clear what, precisely, the United States government wants, much less what it is demanding.
Moreover, it is not appropriate to answer the question about Israel's response in simple fashion. Israel, as well as the United States, is a complex entity. It may not qualify as a mammoth, but neither is it a well articulated, centrally controlled beast whose mutterings allow a simple prediction of governmental action.
In other words, Israel, too, has its good cops and bad cops. The Jewish people have not survived for upwards of 3,000 years without learning how to wiggle out of the threats posed by great empires.
Likely to help on this occasion, as they have in previous confrontations, are the Palestinians. Their spokesmen are on a high horse, more than a bit too high for the tolerance of Israelis and a few others. Nonnegotiable demands from the Palestinians are all Israel needs to cope with the threats coming from North America and Europe. Currently the Palestinians are not willing to begin negotiations until Israel complies with their wishes. Also helpful are the Syrians and Iranians. Their intransigence is just what Israel needs for a few more years without a great power dictate.
Israeli cynicism is way out in front of optimism. So far more than 2,800 respondents have replied to a question asked by a prominent web site, "What will come from American pressure on Israel?"
15 percent say that Israel will reach an agreement with Palestinians
4 percent say that Israel will alter its policy with respect to nuclear weapons
4 percent say that Israel stop being vague and make peace
77 percent say that Israel will do nothing.
I welcome comments sent to my e-mail address, below.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il