It was one of the most difficult meetings ever held at the White House. In May 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was just beginning his second term in office, met officially for the first time with President Barack Obama, who himself was not long into his first presidential term. In his autobiography, "Bibi, My Story" Netanyahu tells how Obama said to him: "You know, people often underestimate me. But I come from Chicago, where I had to deal with tough opponents." But according to Mazal Mualem's biography of Netanyahu, "The Netanyahu Code," Obama went a step further and made a throat -slitting gesture and said, "I know how to deal with people who oppose me." Netanyahu just said of the meeting that Obama had "said something out of character that shocked me deeply." The President's message, Netanyahu added, "was unmistakable. It was meant to intimidate me."
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Obama, at least when it came to Israel, was a dogmatic president. Joe Biden, on the other hand, is a lot more pragmatic, and for that matter, sympathetic. The last thing Obama did at the end of his two-term presidency was to pass United Nations Security Resolution 2334 which he had orchestrated behind the scenes. The resolution defined Israel as an occupier in the Western Wall and Jerusalem. The resolution didn't contribute anything to anyone. It just caused damage to Israel and sullied Obama who just couldn't help himself.
Biden on the other hand, doesn't hide his personal affection for Netanyahu. You couldn't miss it when he skipped the row of waiting government ministers as he began his visit to Israel last summer and went straight to shake his old friend's hand.
But there are other factors beyond the two men's personal friendship that can be expected to create a conciliatory atmosphere between them. Biden, as we all recall, was Obama's Vice President. Back then, the school of thought in the administration was that it was possible to reach peace with the Palestinians and that it was their duty to sign an agreement with the Iranians. Netanyahu fought tooth and nail on both fronts and a clash became inevitable. Today the administration knows that there is no possibility of an agreement with the Palestinians and that the window of opportunity for an agreement with the Iranians has shut. So on both these issues, Netanyahu will be asked, "What's your alternative?"
On the Iranian issue, Netanyahu will present a clear policy. As his closest partner Ron Dermer described it in the podcast "Diplomatically Incorrect" Netanyahu will present what the President is likely to view as a daring vision from his perspective. Netanyahu's proposal leans on three legs and could change the face of history.
The first leg is a full American revamp of policy toward Iran: Instead of crawling toward a groveling nuclear agreement, maximum pressure including the "snapback" - in other words, European sanctions against Iran. The second element is publicly and boldly embracing the Iranian protest movement in a historic speech, similar to speeches given by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the 1980s which contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. The third leg is US backing for Saudi Arabia – despite the Khashoggi affair – and America's other historic allies in the Arabian Gulf.
Dermer believes that the result of these three steps will be a fall in the price of energy in the world, peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel, a Nobel Prize for the American president, and stability for generations to come in the Middle East. It can be done in the near future, in Biden's present term. Biden could get the Nobel Peace Prize if he takes the right steps, Dermer said on the podcast.
Getting off on the right foot
With regard to the Palestinian issue, things are more complicated. It is clear that there is no possibility to reach an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and, moreover, the administration fears for the stability of the PA, both with and without connection to the age and health of the dictator, Mahmoud Abbas. The White House is also worried about the composition of the incoming Israeli government, in particular, the policies that will be adopted by designated ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. That was the impression that former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett received when he met this week with US national Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Bennett tried to calm his interlocutor and asked him to give a chance to the new government, "without any connection to political fluctuations," as he put it.
For the moment, the Americans intend to do just that. Addressing the JStreet National Conference at the beginning of the week, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said: "We will gauge the government by the policies it pursues rather than individual personalities." That is a good start, and, incidentally, one that is in stark contrast to the prophecies of doom made by the left-wing media about an American boycott of some of the new ministers.
Difficult, but possible
From the moment the Americans got off on the right foot with the new government, the ball moved into the court of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, Orit Strook, and Yitzhak Wasserlauf. They have the responsibility to enact the policies they were elected to lead, but at the same time, they must maintain ties with the administration. It won't be easy. For many years the designated ministers said that Netanyahu is using American pressure as an excuse to avoid implementing measures favorable to the settlement enterprise. Now, they will have to show that it is possible to dance at two weddings; both to strengthen Israel's hold on Judea and Samaria, but at the same time not to anger the gods to the extent that Israel is left abandoned in the international arena.
Is there a way this can be done? There is no choice. With no final status agreement on the horizon, the most important thing now for the Americans is to ensure the civil rights and human dignity of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. The Americans are also frustrated at the record number of Arabs killed this year in Judea and Samaria – almost all of them terrorists of course.
Even though they are divided on the American perspective, the right-wing ministers will have to respond to it. While it may outrage them, they will have to add this language.
That means that when they want to pave a new road in Judea and Samaria, they will have to provide the Americans with figures that show that the Arabs will benefit from this road no less than the Jews, or when plans are approved for new construction in the settlements, they will have to show the American administration the financial benefit that Arab construction workers will gain from the move. When the rules of engagement are changed, when a curfew is imposed, or when stipends paid to terrorists are offset from taxes Israel collects for the Palestinians, they will have to persuade the Americans that tougher measures on law and order won't just reduce the number of Jews hurt in terror attacks but also the number of Palestinians involved. Such a pattern of thought will be essential from now on for those taking up a ministerial role.
Because in a dialogue with the Americans it is possible to stretch things to the limit, but you cannot let ties tear. The harsh American criticism of Israel over the death of Shireen Abu Akleh is hypocritical. The American support of UNRAW – which is nothing more than an organization for the perpetuation of the conflict for eternity – is outrageous. The American failure to recognize the historical rights of Jews in Judea and Samaria is incredulous.
But anger is not a plan of action. Despite all the disagreements and differences, America is the sole superpower in the world, it is the best friend Israel has and is tied to security and economy like a Siamese twin. The US is our best and almost only defender at the UN Security Council. Whoever finds himself sitting at the wheel of power must know how to drive in the international arena and to bridge ideology and realpolitik.
This may be a difficult exercise to pull off but it is not impossible. The new ministers can learn from their now-eliminated political rival, Naftali Bennett. As a right- wing Prime Minister Bennett refused to use the words "Palestinian state," he refused the American demand to open a consulate for the Palestinians in Jerusalem, moved the March of Flags to the Damascus Gate, and changed the rules of engagement against incendiary balloon cells in Gaza. He approved construction plans in Judea and Samaria, and he did all this while maintaining mutual respect and working relationships with the senior administration officials who this week received him for a farewell meeting. That is the model that the members of the "most right-wing government in Israel's history" should aspire to.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
