Obama-Netanyahu: Round 1 Goes to Obama (or Dr. Phil)

There was a striking stylistic difference in the way President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu began their 33-minute news conference this afternoon, following their intensely anticipated first (and two-hour) meeting as leaders of their respective countries. (Watch the video.) The style tells you most of what you need to know about the substance—who’s in command in this new relationship (Obama), and who’s the supplicant (Netanyahu).

They sat close enough together by the fireside in the Oval Office, leaning in toward each other, as if overtly conscious of what their handlers had told them: Don’t let your body language betray dislike, as nothing in their past suggests mutual admiration. But Obama sat cross-legged. Netanyahu sat open-legged.

Obama talked first, for about seven minutes. I’ll get into the details in a moment. It was the way he talked that spoke loads: cautiously, detachedly, and with that air of deference masking condescension that makes clear who’s in charge: “I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue” (the Palestinian-Israeli peace process). “I’ll allow him to speak for himself on that subject...” “He has both youth and wisdom…” “I’m confident that he’s going to seize this moment.” These are phrases you hear a university dean say about a challenging, if prospectively fine, student—not phrases you hear one equal say about another. At no point did Obama address Netanyahu directly. He spoke of him in the third person, spoke of the United States as “we”: “There is no reason why we should not seize this opportunity.” “We are going to be able to make progress.” He was telling, not suggesting. It was as if Netanyahu was a prop, and Obama’s audience the world beyond the Oval Office. Which it is.

Netanyahu as Supplicant

That wasn’t the half of it. When Obama turned it over to Netanyahu, it was as if the Israeli prime minister—one of the most forceful, arrogant, supremely polished Israeli leaders of the past 61 years—had been reduced to one of those tamed and contrite guests on Oprah or Dr. Phil or even Springer. He turned to Obama, unleashed the flattery (“You’re a great leader -- a great leader of the United States, a great leader of the world”), the first person, the verbal bows (“thank you for your friendship”), the sheer clasp-handed gratefulness and insistence that only grew minute after minute: Netanyahu spoke directly to Obama, turned toward him even more as he spoke, like the student across from the dean’s desk grabbing at its edges. It wasn’t the characteristic Netanyahu charm. It was the uncharacteristic image of an Israel prime minister in the rare position of making a public appeal to the American president.

New relationship or window dressing? We’ll know soon. The early signs aren’t particularly promising. From what the two men said, they laid out their well-known positions, but emerged without even a hint of a proposal on how they might move issues forward. And what hint they did emerge with (this pernicious coupling of Iran’s nuclear issue with the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, when Netanyahu wants to use the Iranian issue mostly as a hedge against dealing with the Palestinian issue) would not bode well for progress.

The Substance

Here’s what I found most notable about Obama’s words: He referred to Israel as an “independent Jewish state.” That “Jewish” insert was unexpected. American presidents since Truman have happily embraced the independent part but carefully avoided stressing the Jewish part. Obama did follow Netanyahu’s wish by speaking of Iran first—again, that would appear to be a concession to the agenda’s priorities. And he spoke of a nuclear Iran as something that “could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East,” a bit too obviously ignoring that Israel triggered the nuclear arms race decades ago by lying to Lyndon Johnson. Only then did Obama speak of the Palestinian issue and his wish for “a two-state solution.” There was mildly strong language directly addressing Netanyahu: “All the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they’ve previously agreed to.” By which Obama meant an end to settlements in Occupied Palestine (Netanyahu doesn’t agree) and a meaningful process toward Palestinian independence (ditto).

As for Netanyahu: he confirmed that while some autonomy for the Palestinians is OK, “We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel.” That means no sovereignty, no independence, no Palestinian military, and, in Netanyahu’s version of events, no Palestinian controls over Palestinian borders. "Two-state solution" has been excised from Netanyahu's vocabulary. In other words, the Gaza siege, minus a few constraints. He also floated the other recurrent condition he knows Palestinians will never go for (not least because of the 20 percent Arab minority in Israel): “The Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.” It’s not enough that Palestinians and Arabs recognize Israel’s right to exist, which they have. No, they must recognize what even Harry Truman wouldn’t. That’s Netanyahu’s business as usual.

Settlements and Gaza

Two other issues Obama addressed rather forcefully: no more settlements (although every president has said as much). And while Obama recognizes that rockets “raining down” on an Israeli city from Gaza is unacceptable (“raining down” is of course tendentious hyperbole, unless one is also willing to speak of the monsoons of Israeli ordnance on Gaza), “the fact is,” he said, “that if the people of Gaza have no hope, if they can’t even get clean water at this point, if the border closures are so tight that it is impossible for reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to take place, then that is not going to be a recipe for Israel’s long-term security or a constructive peace track to move forward.”

It’s the first time I know of that an American president has, essentially, justified the violence Israel is provoking out of Gaza with its siege of a strip of land Palestinians refer to as their open-air prison. (See also "Senseless in Gaza," a Haaretz editorial on the subject.)

In sum, Netanyahu may have come to Washington hoping to convince Obama to budge closer to the Iranian issue. He failed. But if Obama was hoping to crack Netanyahu’s obstinacy, he failed, too. Obama’s biggest achievement was letting Netanyahu know in person that this is no longer the manipulable, undiciplined, Lewinski-obsessed Clinton White House Netanyahu knew the first time he was prime minister, nor is there as easily a blindsided Congress as there was then. On those counts, Obama was the winner.

As for the Palestinians, they continue to be the losers, which is the ultimate verdict: there's nothing they can hang their flag on. Next up for Obama: the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas and Egypt’s aging dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

See Also:

• How Obama Can Resolve the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
• Barack Obama's Middle East Policy
• Obama and Israel: Analysis of Barack Obama's AIPAC Speech
• Netanyahu's Aipac Speech: What he Didn't Say
• Netanyahu Will be Israel's Next Prime Minister
• What Would You Tell Benjamin Netanyahu?

Other Views:

• Time: Obama-Bibi showdown
• Israeli settlers reject Obama's call to stop building
• David Frum: "Netanyahu: The Right Leader for the Right Time"
• Bret Stephens: A Strategy for Netanyahu (WSJ)
• Moshe Arens against a two-state solution (Haaretz)
• Eric Alterman: The "Pro Israel" Smear Campaign