Scaling back. Obama
Photo: AP
No emotional attachment
Thus far, Obama displayed greater sensitivity to Arab world than he did to Israel
When a new president enters the White House and one wishes to identify his attitude to Israel, two components in his personality and worldview need to be examined: Emotions and interests.
Deep Gaps
Yitzhak Benhorin
Smiles cannot hide deep gaps between US president, Israeli prime minister
The emotions may stem from the circumstances that prompted the State of Israel's establishment, the Shoah and the War of Independence, deep religious feelings, or appreciation for the values represented by Israel and for its achievements. The second component refers to the extent of congruity which the president sees in respect to the US' and Israel's interests, mostly in the Middle East.
A president becomes Israel's most loyal friend when both components are present to a high extent in shaping his policy. He is less loyal when only one of them is present, and is certainly not loyal if both aspects are lacking. This principle is equally applicable to Democratic and Republican presidents.
Most US presidents who served in the White House since Israel's establishment shaped their attitude to Israel on the basis of the combination of emotions and interests. As result of this combination, the US-Israel relationship has been described and defined as special; the kind of ties the US maintains with very few states, such as Britain for example.
In the history of the relations between US and Israel, we have seen several variations of this combination. The Democratic Truman, just like the Republican Reagan, adopted a policy premised on the combination of emotions and interests. Nixon felt nothing for Israel but supported it for strategic reasons. Eisenhower, the US commander in Europe in World War II and the man who liberated the Jews from the extermination camps, felt no emotion towards Israel and viewed it as a strategic burden. Emotions and a perception of similar interests affected US-Israel relations to a large extent during the tenures of the last two presidents, Clinton and Bush.
Despite his outspokenness, the use of clichés, and the maintenance of close ties with Jews in Chicago, Obama is devoid of any emotion towards Israel. Thus far, he displayed much greater sensitivity towards the Arab and Muslims world.
In his first meeting with Netanyahu it turned out that the component of interests has also weakened. Indeed, Obama and Netanyahu agree on several aims, such as the need to prevent Iran from securing nuclear weapons and the need to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, disagreements were revealed in respect to priorities and means, which also stem from divergent worldviews.
Obama views reconciliation with the Arab and Muslim world as his greatest challenge and the most effective way to address violence, terrorism, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Therefore, he already visited Turkey and is about to visit Egypt and address Muslims worldwide from there. It is possible that in his view, reconciliation with the Muslim world requires a certain scaling back of the special ties with Israel.
With his desire to produce rapid progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and with the link Obama created between such progress and the ability to establish a regional and international coalition against Iran's nuclear program, Obama expects Israel to help the US implement its major objectives. Should Israel fail to integrate into the emerging American approach, there is danger that the Obama administration would view it as the elements that hinders it from securing its objectives.
In the absences of special emotions towards Israel and what it represents, such conclusion could have grave consequences. Therefore, we need as much as possible to cooperate, while standing up for our red lines, which must not be crossed.
Professor Eytan Gilboa is a US expert and a political science and communications lecturer at Bar-Ilan University
