Barack Obama's Cairo speech touched so many buttons that the breadth of responses should be no surprise.
The next day's Ha'aretz devoted nine of twenty-six pages in its main section to commentaries about the speech. Israelis and overseas Jews welcomed the comments about the Holocaust, but some criticized what they perceived as its equivalence to Palestinian suffering. While appreciating his comments about the Holocaust at Buchenwald, some are bothered by his endorsement of German commemoration of the Holocaust. In this view, nothing the Germans do will make up for the murders of six million. One Jewish writer challenged what he saw as Obama's justification of Israel's existence by the suffering of Jews and not by the Almighty's grant of the Land to the Jews. Some Jews applaud Obama's linkage of progress to a halt of settlement activity, and hope the Israeli government will give peace a chance. Yet others, centrists as well as rightists in Israel, see little hope in shrill American demands for a total freeze of settlement activity in the context of the right wing Israeli government, widespread distrust of Palestinians among Israelis and of Israelis among Palestinians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/world/middleeast/06diplo.html?hpw)
A survey of responses to the speech in Arab media also finds divergent and contrasting comments: it was too pro-Israeli; it represented a promising new departure; its success will depend on strong follow up by the American administration as well as the support of Israeli and Arab governments. (www.memri.org Special Dispatch #2384, June 5, 2009)
Israel is a democracy, and the population is divided on Obama's issues. Polls show support, but not overwhelming, for a "freeze" on settlements if by that is meant no expansion of existing communities. There is opposition to freezing construction within existing settlements.
It is a political platitude that the only poll which counts is that at the ballot box. The most recent election returned a right wing government, whose Knesset majority is dead set against freezing construction within settlements, and may oppose freezing the expansion of settlements.
None of the Arab countries are democracies, but none can ignore the passions of their populations that reflect more than 60 years of anti-Israel rhetoric, reinforced by religious sentiments of much longer standing.
Numerous commentators see the Obama strategy as one that views a freezing of settlements as the best way, and perhaps the only way, to unfreeze the Israel/Palestinian peace process and provide what the United States needs to deal with Iraq and Iran. On this point, one journalist writes that the "president sees himself in an almost messianic role." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/world/middleeast/06mideast.html?hp
Reference to a messiah will not help the president in Jerusalem.
The operative questions are, How hard can Obama press the Israeli government? and What will the Israeli government do in order to protect what it views as its vital interests?
One should not assume that Obama has a blank check, either from himself or from Congress and others in the United States who provide him with essential support. His comments in Cairo and Buchenwald reveal an empathy toward the Jewish narrative. Numerous members of Congress and other Americans (Jews as well as Gentiles) support the beginning of work on the Middle East via Israeli settlements. What is not clear is how sure is the President himself, and others, that pressing hard against the Israelis will get what is necessary from Palestinians, other Arabs, and Iran. If the president has a streak of messianicism, he also has one of pragmatism.
Likewise, it is not clear how far Israelis in power will go to accommodate the president, against their views that the settlements are less important than Arab enmity, the fanaticism of Iran and its nuclear program.
Prominent in the uncertainty is a comment in Russia by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that Israel will not attack Iran. Was he departing from his view that Iran's nuclear program is an intolerable threat against Israel? At about the same time, Defense Minister Ehud Barack was reiterating a conventional message that Israel was not taking any options off the table.
One view of those comments is that the Israeli government is divided, and will continue to debate its options about Iran. One should also expect debates about settlements. Involved in those debates will be the support or hostility expected from the Obama administration, and the prospects of Arab and Iranian compliance with those portions of the Obama program meant for them.
It is also possible that Lieberman was doing his part to disseminate disinformation. If preparations for an attack are going forward, it is too early to know.
For those who cannot tolerate uncertainty, there may be options in Norway, New Zealand, and other distant places.
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