Introduction by Scott Weiner
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington last week to meet with President Obama, speak before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and address a joint session of Congress. In the media environment of the 21st century, separating honest analysis from political spin is more difficult than ever before. The challenge is only exacerbated when the issues at hand, as they were this week, are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the US-Israel relationship.
Opinions on these issues are both passionate and deeply divided, and the Middle East Discussion Group of Young Professionals in Foreign Policy is no exception to the rule. The group consists of 38 highly qualified members of the government, non-profit, private, and academic sectors. This diversity of background inevitably breeds disagreement over how many policy questions, especially with regards to the Middle East, should be answered. However, rather than avoid disagreement, the group thrives upon it..
The following are two opinions about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit from two MEDG members who closely monitor the Arab-Israeli conflict:
Much Ado About Not Very Much Might Lead to Something
By James Stocker
The focus of much of the news coverage of Obama and Netanyahu’s recent speeches has been on an apparent clash between the two leaders. Presumably, Obama staked out a position on the 1967 borders because the administration wanted to show a measure of movement in the stalled Middle East negotiations, perhaps thinking that this would be relatively uncontroversial. After all, the creation of a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 borders between Israel and the West Bank – with swaps of territory – has been the unstated position of the United States for many years. Netanyahu, however, spurned the President’s speech, issuing statements about his “expectations” and rejecting the 1967 borders in front of the American Congress.
In the short run, Bibi appears to have come out on top. Obama had to clarify that “1967 borders with adjustments” meant frontiers different than those of 1967, and even leaders in his own party, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, indirectly criticized the President. Over the long term, however, Netanyahu may be undermining Israel’s own interests. This fall, the UN General Assembly will consider the recognition of a Palestinian state. The Obama administration cannot veto a UNGA resolution, but it could – if it was so inclined – put pressure on US allies to veto. With Israel showing little flexibility, what incentive does Obama have to do so? The administration could simply get on record as opposing premature recognition, and let events take their course. Indeed, the President just announced Wednesday May 25th that he “strongly believe[s] that for Palestinians to take the United Nations route rather than the path of sitting down and talking with the Israelis is a mistake.” Yet while the President also strongly believes that Fatah’s reconciliation with Hamas was a mistake, he has done nothing to oppose it.
Ultimately, whether Bibi has made a mistake is yet to be seen. Still surfing the tidal wave of public support following the Bin Laden killing, and facing a field of deeply flawed Republican challengers, Obama may just ride out this storm, leaving Netanyahu wet.
Reaction From the Region is Skeptical
By Abram Shanedling
Most Israelis seem to have mixed reactions to Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech before Congress. On one hand, the speech was a rhetorical success both in its deliverance, style and substance—showing empathy for Arab aspirations for freedom and crystallizing the tenants of the U.S.-Israel relationship. As a senior policy advisor in the Israeli Foreign Ministry pointed out to me yesterday, "What other Middle Eastern leader at this point in time, could appear before the US Congress and get almost thirty standing ovations from both Democrats and Republicans?" And as far as rallying Congressional backing for Israel who faces a Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN, Netanyahu succeeded. Likewise, recent polls in Israel show that Netanyahu's popularity is at some of its highest levels ever. "You don't need to export democracy to Israel," Netanyahu said. "We've already got it."
Yet at the same time, Israelis also admit that the speech was just a speech. Most understand that any speech – from Obama or Netanyahu - is unlikely to lure the Palestinian Authority (and of course not Iran-backed Hamas) to the negotiating table or to ever offer their own serious concessions. As far a diplomatic message related to peace with the Palestinians, Netanyahu's congressional speech offered nothing remarkably new. This was similar in essence to Obama iterating that negotiations for the past 15 years have loosely been based on the pre-1967 borders with land swaps. In fact, Netanyahu articulated almost exactly what he had already declared at the Knesset regarding elements of a peace plan: that Israel would be willing to make generous territorial concessions if Abbas can publicly ready his people to accept the presence of a Jewish state. This was a major personal innovation for Netanyahu, who had only publicly endorsed the notion of a two-state solution in a speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009. Yet at the end of the day, until the Palestinian leadership can also offer some flexibility on the refugee issue and other long-held demands, the peace process will unfortunately remain in a rut.
a global affairs media network
Point-Counterpoint: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Visit to Washington
May 31, 2011
Introduction by Scott Weiner
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington last week to meet with President Obama, speak before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and address a joint session of Congress. In the media environment of the 21st century, separating honest analysis from political spin is more difficult than ever before. The challenge is only exacerbated when the issues at hand, as they were this week, are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the US-Israel relationship.
Opinions on these issues are both passionate and deeply divided, and the Middle East Discussion Group of Young Professionals in Foreign Policy is no exception to the rule. The group consists of 38 highly qualified members of the government, non-profit, private, and academic sectors. This diversity of background inevitably breeds disagreement over how many policy questions, especially with regards to the Middle East, should be answered. However, rather than avoid disagreement, the group thrives upon it..
The following are two opinions about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit from two MEDG members who closely monitor the Arab-Israeli conflict:
Much Ado About Not Very Much Might Lead to Something
By James Stocker
The focus of much of the news coverage of Obama and Netanyahu’s recent speeches has been on an apparent clash between the two leaders. Presumably, Obama staked out a position on the 1967 borders because the administration wanted to show a measure of movement in the stalled Middle East negotiations, perhaps thinking that this would be relatively uncontroversial. After all, the creation of a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 borders between Israel and the West Bank – with swaps of territory – has been the unstated position of the United States for many years. Netanyahu, however, spurned the President’s speech, issuing statements about his “expectations” and rejecting the 1967 borders in front of the American Congress.
In the short run, Bibi appears to have come out on top. Obama had to clarify that “1967 borders with adjustments” meant frontiers different than those of 1967, and even leaders in his own party, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, indirectly criticized the President. Over the long term, however, Netanyahu may be undermining Israel’s own interests. This fall, the UN General Assembly will consider the recognition of a Palestinian state. The Obama administration cannot veto a UNGA resolution, but it could – if it was so inclined – put pressure on US allies to veto. With Israel showing little flexibility, what incentive does Obama have to do so? The administration could simply get on record as opposing premature recognition, and let events take their course. Indeed, the President just announced Wednesday May 25th that he “strongly believe[s] that for Palestinians to take the United Nations route rather than the path of sitting down and talking with the Israelis is a mistake.” Yet while the President also strongly believes that Fatah’s reconciliation with Hamas was a mistake, he has done nothing to oppose it.
Ultimately, whether Bibi has made a mistake is yet to be seen. Still surfing the tidal wave of public support following the Bin Laden killing, and facing a field of deeply flawed Republican challengers, Obama may just ride out this storm, leaving Netanyahu wet.
Reaction From the Region is Skeptical
By Abram Shanedling
Most Israelis seem to have mixed reactions to Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech before Congress. On one hand, the speech was a rhetorical success both in its deliverance, style and substance—showing empathy for Arab aspirations for freedom and crystallizing the tenants of the U.S.-Israel relationship. As a senior policy advisor in the Israeli Foreign Ministry pointed out to me yesterday, "What other Middle Eastern leader at this point in time, could appear before the US Congress and get almost thirty standing ovations from both Democrats and Republicans?" And as far as rallying Congressional backing for Israel who faces a Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN, Netanyahu succeeded. Likewise, recent polls in Israel show that Netanyahu's popularity is at some of its highest levels ever. "You don't need to export democracy to Israel," Netanyahu said. "We've already got it."
Yet at the same time, Israelis also admit that the speech was just a speech. Most understand that any speech – from Obama or Netanyahu - is unlikely to lure the Palestinian Authority (and of course not Iran-backed Hamas) to the negotiating table or to ever offer their own serious concessions. As far a diplomatic message related to peace with the Palestinians, Netanyahu's congressional speech offered nothing remarkably new. This was similar in essence to Obama iterating that negotiations for the past 15 years have loosely been based on the pre-1967 borders with land swaps. In fact, Netanyahu articulated almost exactly what he had already declared at the Knesset regarding elements of a peace plan: that Israel would be willing to make generous territorial concessions if Abbas can publicly ready his people to accept the presence of a Jewish state. This was a major personal innovation for Netanyahu, who had only publicly endorsed the notion of a two-state solution in a speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009. Yet at the end of the day, until the Palestinian leadership can also offer some flexibility on the refugee issue and other long-held demands, the peace process will unfortunately remain in a rut.
