WASHINGTON — The stage and the performers looked the same. But the plot, it appears, has thickened. Israeli and Americans leaders, speaking once again at the annual AIPAC Policy Conference, reiterated their support for both countries, their commitment to cooperation, and the usual rhetoric one would expect to find at an ego-stroking gathering. But this year, there is much at stake.
For the Israelis, their backyard has significantly changed. One year ago, people had just begun uttering the words “Arab Spring” without really knowing what the Summer and Fall would look like. Egypt had a “devil-we-know” leader, and Syria was a menace – albeit a quiet one – on the other side of the mountains.
Missing from the speeches so far were references to the success of economic sanctions against Iran, as recently stated in a Haaretz interview with American Jewry’s sweetheart, the former US envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, as well as any effort to understand the nuances of Iranian society and policies (like the deeper significance of the Iranian parliamentary elections just a few days earlier).
Barack Obama could make a career out of speaking before AIPAC. He addressed the gathering four years ago as then-Senator Barack Obama. He was running for President against Hillary Clinton at the time, a then-favorite amongst American Jews, and had even visited Israel on behalf of his home state of Illinois. (He has not gone back since, much to the chagrin of many in the pro-Israel camp. “You were in the neighborhood and you couldn’t stop by?” the Jewish grandmothers would ask.) When Obama spoke at last year’s AIPAC conference, his tone was slightly more defensive. His speech came in the midst of a war of rhetoric with the Israeli prime minister over the 1967 borders and whether he said what he said and how he said it.
And of course he spoke again this year, this time as a president seeking re-election. There may only be a few thousand delegates attending the AIPAC conference, but Obama is acutely aware of the role those people may play in his re-election. The American population stands at about 300 million people, and Jewish Americans make up about 2 percent of the population. What’s key is not their vote but rather their monetary power. President Obama knew that he was speaking not necessarily in front of voters – many of whom come from states where the Democratic candidate will win anyway – but rather in front of key donors. And in trying to reiterate his support for Israel, his speech read very much like a report card of the last four years, listing practically one-by-one the things he claims he has done on behalf of America’s “strongest ally.” Speaking in Washington on Sunday, Obama said:
When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it. When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them. When the Durban conference was commemorated, we boycotted it, and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism. When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them. When Israeli diplomats feared for their lives in Cairo, we intervened to save them. When there are efforts to boycott or divest from Israel, we will stand against them. And whenever an effort is made to de-legitimize the state of Israel, my administration has opposed them. So there should not be a shred of doubt by now — when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.
AIPAC is quite a complicated organization to understand. It is not black-and-white, and the success of the pro-Israel lobby has not always been as guaranteed as some would have you believe. Thirty years ago, U.S. President Ronald Reagan – a Republican – infuriated supporters of Israel by selling American weapons to Saudi Arabia, officially a sworn enemy of Israel. He was also the first American president to publically punish Israel for its actions, by endorsing a UN resolution condemning Israel’s attack on Iraq and by freezing military cooperation between the two countries. The pro-Israel lobby could do nothing to stop him, and yet historically – and rather ironically – Reagan is still trumpeted as a true friend to Israel.
Netanyahu, it is thought, was hoping that President Obama would use very clear words in stating Washington’s position on military action against Iran. That didn’t happen. Netanyahu wanted something along the lines of “we are capable and ready to attack you and we will not hesitate to do so.” Indeed, Obama’s tone was more flexible than the Israeli leader would have wanted had he himself been writing it, with the American president making illusions to a military response, noting – as he has done before – that everything is on the table but not specifically outlining what that “everything” is.
No one is under any illusion that a gathering of Obama and Netanyahu is a love fest. It is well known that two leaders do not like each other. Perhaps it is not as it was under Reagan, who made no effort to hide his distaste for then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in the 1980s. Still, tensions between Obama and Netanyahu, scheduled to speak last at AIPAC, have been strained for some time, often more publicly than either would have liked. It doesn’t help that one of Netanyahu’s biggest backers, American billionaire Sheldon Adelson, is partially bankrolling – to the tune of some $15 million – the election campaign of Republican contender Newt Gingrich. It’s pretty clear Netanyahu wants Obama out. And it’s safe to say the feeling is mutual.
All of this puts the pro-Israel lobby in an awkward position. And they are being constantly bombarded with anti-Obama propaganda by pro-war neo-conservatives, like the so-called “Emergency Committee for Israel.”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wbH5KVPrPo[/youtube]
Most attending the conference will tell you that their being pro-Israel is simply an extension of their being pro-American, meaning they believe that promoting Israel’s interests is in Washington’s interests. Fair enough. Both leaders represent independent sovereign countries with their own sovereign issues to address. Naturally, there is often overlap. Obama re-enforced that shared interest as a reason for cooperation, especially on a big issue like Iran, noting:
No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction. And so I understand the profound historical obligation that weighs on the shoulders of Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, and all of Israel’s leaders. A nuclear-armed Iran is completely counter to Israel’s security interests. But it is also counter to the national security interests of the United States.
Obama and Netanyahu will meet on Monday morning at the White House. Obama is confident he’ll win a second term and thus believes this won’t be their last meeting. But he’s hoping Netanyahu won’t do anything rash to undermine his campaign before November’s vote. Raising the temperature on Iran – which in turn raises the price at the pump for millions of Americans – can do just that. So Obama needs Netanyahu’s cooperation. And vice versa: Netanyahu can’t touch Iran without U.S. backing and, frankly, its assistance. Washington will have to mediate between Israel and an Arab power, like Saudi Arabia, to provide Israel with air space for any attack on Iran as well as landing space for refueling. So Netanyahu, too, needs Obama’s cooperation.
And this is where diplomacy kicks in. Both leaders have their demands to make and both leaders have their favors to ask.
