Without concrete action, a US 'reassessment' of relations with Israel will mean nothing

In recent weeks, the relationship between Israel and its staunch ally the US has been severely strained. The initial catalyst was Israel’s opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran that the US and other world powers are hoping to secure by 31 March. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to address Congress last month without seeking White House approval exacerbated these tensions. The days leading up to the Israeli election pushed relations to historic lows, especially when Netanyahu made derogatory comments about Arab-Israeli voters and said that he would not stand by and see the creation of a Palestinian state, which is a cornerstone of US foreign policy.

From there, things have only got worse. It was revealed this week that Israeli officials spied on the closed-door Iran talks, passing some of the information to hawkish US lawmakers to undermine the discussions. Given that the Obama administration was already furious about Netanyahu’s decision to insert himself into partisan domestic politics with his speech to Congress, this latest revelation has been met with outrage. “It is one thing for the US and Israel to spy on each other,” an unnamed senior official told the Wall Street Journal. “It is another thing for Israel to steal US secrets and play them back to US legislators to undermine US diplomacy.”

At a press conference this week, President Barack Obama gave a clear indication of how bad the relationship has become. It is no secret that Obama and Netanyahu dislike each other personally. Netanyahu has aligned himself repeatedly with the US Republican Party, with whom he shares an ideology as well as personal connections. However, Obama dismissed claims that this personal animosity was important. “The issue is not a matter of relations between leaders,” said the president. “The issue is a very clear substantive challenge. We believe that two states is the best path forward for Israel’s security, for Palestinian aspirations and for regional stability. And Prime Minister Netanyahu has a different approach.”

A Middle East peace deal, including the creation of a Palestinian state, was one of the key foreign policy goals of Obama’s second term. He told reporters that this no longer seemed likely. “What we can’t do is pretend there’s a possibility for something that’s not there,” he said. “And we can’t continue to premise our public diplomacy on something that everybody knows is not going to happen, at least in the next several years.”

After winning the general election, Netanyahu attempted to backpedal from his comments on Palestinian statehood, saying that he would support a two-state solution if certain conditions were met. Obama dismissed this as “unconvincing”. The president added that the US is thinking about alternatives to Israeli-Palestinian talks, including action at the UN to give Palestinians statehood. If enacted, this would be an enormous departure from current US policy, which has been either to block Palestinian attempts at seeking recourse in the UN, abstain from voting or use the veto.

Up until this latest spat, the US would have automatically vetoed a proposed UN Security Council resolution that would impose a two-year deadline on Israel to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories. Now, perhaps, that will not happen. The withdrawal of the umbrella veto of UN resolutions critical of Israel would allow the US to register its displeasure with Netanyahu, although it would be a largely symbolic act that is unlikely to have much of an impact on Israeli policy.

And it is still a big “if” whether this will actually happen. Despite increasingly sharp words being exchanged between the US administration and Israel, America hasn’t actually done much to make its point hit home. There is a precedent for such action, though. In 1992, when the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir refused to stop building settlements in the West Bank, US President George H W Bush rescinded a $10 billion loan guarantee. Shamir was not re-elected; nor, by the way, was Bush Senior. Even further back, when Israel was delaying over disengaging its forces from the occupied Sinai Peninsula in the 1970s, President Gerald Ford postponed the delivery of weapons to Tel Aviv and deferred consideration of economic aid. This pressure brought Israel back to negotiations and laid the ground for Israeli troops to withdraw from Egypt.

In contrast, Obama has gone out of his way to stress that US military aid to Israel is unshakeable. This aid has gone up to a record $3.1 billion per year under his administration, despite the enmity between the two leaders and the fact that Netanyahu has repeatedly frustrated US policy goals and undermined the president himself.

Of course, domestic US politics have a big part to play. Obama and the Democratic Party are concerned about losing the support of Jewish voters. In the intensely partisan atmosphere of Washington, there is no doubt that any concrete action against Israel would be picked up gleefully by the Republicans as a way to hammer the president.

Obama is also in a weak position as Congress is dominated by the Grand Old Party, which is likely to support even more military aid to Israel. Yet there are things that the president can do: delay weapons getting to Israel, pause military training, or halt the charitable funding for Israeli settlements from American organisations. The “reassessment” of the US-Israel relationship that Obama has called for is necessary, but without some concrete steps, it will mean and come to nothing.

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