by Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi
The paradox created by this carrot and stick policy makes one wonder where American diplomacy is headed in the twilight of the Obama era and how the mixed signals coming from Washington can be interpreted.
U.S. President Barack
Obama's policies on the Middle East, especially those evident over the
past few weeks, give the impression that the greatest threat to the
United States' values, culture and democratic legacy is none other than
Israel.
The Arab world is being
rattled to its core, but the White House adheres to the framework of
Washington's special relationship with Jerusalem, regardless of the
internal contradictions plaguing U.S. policy. On the one hand, the White
House warns, daily, of the erosion of the normative and ideological
common denominator at the heart of the U.S.-Israel partnership; while on
the other hand, and despite the harsh criticism Obama has been leveling
at Israel over its alleged "deviation" from the American path of
pluralism and tolerance, it approved a generous package of strategic and
diplomatic incentives.
Obama's decision to
block the Egyptian-led bid for an international summit on a possible
Middle East nuclear arms ban, which Israel opposed, and the U.S.'s
decision to supply Israel with advanced weapon systems such as Hellfire
missiles and bunker-buster bombs, are at the heart of this supportive
policy.
The paradox created by
this carrot and stick policy makes one wonder where American diplomacy
is headed in the twilight of the Obama era and how the mixed signals
coming from Washington can be interpreted.
From a security
standpoint, the message is clear: There is no doubt that the decision to
sell Israel sophisticated weapons that may help it successfully thwart
potential regional threats (mainly Iran), while at the same time
allowing it to maintain deterrence vis-à-vis its enemies, is a
confidence-building measure designed primarily to offer Jerusalem early
compensation for the impending nuclear deal negotiated with Iran.
Still, the U.S. also hopes this would diminish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's resolve to fight the deal.
If this is the case,
and if Washington truly seeks to convince Jerusalem of its commitment to
Israel's security, why has Obama chosen to eclipse the move with a
torrent of accusations and condemnations against the only democracy in
the Middle East?
The answer, which
bridges the carrot and the stick, is anchored in the Iranian context and
is not necessarily linked to values, despite American rhetoric
suggesting otherwise, and especially when you consider that race
relations in the United States leave much be desired.
It stands to reason
that the politician in Obama recognizes a window of opportunity that
allows more leeway with Netanyahu's government this close to the final
decision on the deal with Iran.
Assuming the planned
compensation the White House has alluded to time and again fails to
diminish Israel's objections to the deal, Obama has decide to introduce a
more forceful dimension, in the form of prolonged "education."
Support for Israel
among American liberals has dwindled over the past few years, and now it
seems Obama is striving to encourage such trends, so to further
undermine the American public's support of Israel, especially among
young Democrats.
This could facilitate
the American president's desire to successfully conclude the
negotiations with Iran, and perhaps even lead another move concerning
the Palestinian Authority, while escaping harsh criticism that is sure
to be leveled at him by Israel's supporters in the public and in
Congress, who at this point are adamantly against a deal with Iran.
The next few months will prove
whether this approach will splinter Israel's American support base
further. What has already become clear, however, is that the repeated
cracking of the condemnation whip will only continue to muddy the waters
between the two allies, regardless of what is offered by way of
compensation.
Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12703
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment