Obama turns up the heat on Netanyahu

Over the last few months, the US president Barack Obama has remained largely silent on the matter of the Israel-Palestine peace process. His secretary of state, John Kerry, has taken charge of the protracted task of getting both sides around the negotiating table and pushing for a breakthrough deal.

Recently, however, the president broke his silence. In an interview with Bloomberg columnist Jeffrey Goldblum earlier this month, Obama said that his silence was not to do with pessimism or a lack of concern, but out of respect for the intensive, active diplomatic effort being staged by Kerry. (The Secretary of State has made 11 trips to the region since peace talks restarted in July).

In the interview, which took place just before the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, Obama called for the Israeli premier and the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to do everything they could to reach a deal.

Perhaps the section which provoked the most interest was Obama’s warning that in the absence of a peace deal, America would struggle to defend an increasingly isolated Israel on the international stage. While reiterating America’s commitment to Israel’s security – something that is “not subject to periodic policy differences” – he warned that the need for change was urgent:

“It is not realistic nor is it my desire or expectation that the core commitments we have with Israel change during the remainder of my administration or the next administration. But what I do believe is that if you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction – and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time – if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”

He also warned that if Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach.”

This is a noticeably sharp tone. Clearly, Obama wants to put the pressure on to ensure that a framework for peace is agreed in time for the April deadline set by Kerry. Obama deftly side-stepped the question when Goldblum asked whether it was true that he found Netanyahu’s intransigence frustrating. But the president’s emphasis on Netanyahu’s personal ability to push through the change makes this self-evident. As Goldblum wrote afterwards in a blog for the Council of Foreign Relations, Obama wants to “make the case that Netanyahu, alone among Israelis, has the strength and political credibility to lead his people away from the precipice.”

The response from the Israeli government has, predictably, not been positive. Responding to the interview, Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel Two: “I won’t be pressured”. Israeli Minister of Intelligence and Strategic Affairs, Yuval Steinitz, told Army Radio: “There’s no reason to put pressure on Israel. We want peace, we want to advance toward a diplomatic agreement, but we are justified to be concerned and worried for our national security.”

For an American president to suggest that its support for Israel will be anything less than unconditional is quite a striking break with tradition, and will certainly be of some concern to Israeli policymakers – who are already anxious about international isolation. Obama was measured, merely pointing out that there will come a point where even the powers of the US are limited, but the change in tone is significant. Whether this rhetoric actually has an impact on the process of peace negotiations, however, remains to be seen.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.